Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

BFP's conduct and community block not considered

1) The conduct and community block of BFP will not be considered in this proceeding. If BFP chooses to seek reinstatement of his editing privileges, he may seek reinstatement through prescribed channels.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. If an admin insists on seeking committee endorsement of the block, then BFP should be allowed to participate in his own defense. Furthermore, it opens the door to consideration of the baiting and harassment of BFP by others that may have triggered his misconduct. This will unnecessarily complicate a proceeding that will be complicated enough without considering these issues. Dino 21:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I think this process is valueless without such ratification, especially as I assert that User:DeanHinnen either is User:BryanFromPalatine, acting under color of his putative brother's identity, or that DeanHinnen has been acting as his agent here on Wikipedia in avoidance of this ban, and that therefore he himself is subject to this same ban, which must therefore be material to this case and ratified by this proceeding. However, as a banned user, BryanFromPalatine has already forfeited his right to respond in this proceeding, and his statements to the time of his banning and on the record here are sufficient to ratify this action. -- BenBurch 23:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If BFP ever challenges his community block, sir, the issue can be discussed at that time. Until then, he appears to be perfectly happy with the status quo. Dino 17:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Well, of course he would be comfortable with the status quo! Having danced around the ban so neatly with uncountable "relatives" making accounts to carry out his agenda is a very comfortable position to be in, wouldn't you say? Hmmm... Could I do the same if you succeed in banning me? I have *two* brothers, a sister, a wife, two children, six nieces and nephews all of whom troop in and out of this place all the time (many have keys.) I think if we allow what you are doing to continue it makes a mockery of any block initiated for any reason whatsoever as there are very few people who do not have relatives. -- BenBurch 17:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The status quo is that every member of his family has been permablocked, sir, after being relentlessly ridiculed and hectored during WP:SSP and WP:RFCU, except me. I was permablocked as well, but was returned after a 10-day-long, very thorough examination at Unblock-en-l. I was only able to convince them to unblock me after being extraordinarily civil and patient, and revealing a huge amount of personal information in a public process. Would you and your family be comfortable with all of that, sir? The ridicule and hectoring in WP:SSP and WP:RFCU, the permablocking, and the revealing of personal information under the lengthy scrutiny of a public process to get unblocked? Dino 15:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Please, please please! Do not misrepresent the en-unblock-l "finding" or actions. They decided to give you a second chance, based on your promise to not be disruptive. Nothing binding, or exhaustive, or probative came out of that. You convinced a couple of good folks to trust you to come back here and not leave a mess to be cleaned up. -- BenBurch 16:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
This is for what reason? Because Dean doesn't want it endorsed? Guy ( Help!) 09:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Let's review, sir: "It opens the door to consideration of the baiting and harassment of BFP by others that may have triggered his misconduct. This will unnecessarily complicate a proceeding that will be complicated enough without considering these issues." Dino 10:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If BFP gets dragged into this, sir, I'll be dragging in each and every sockpuppet investigation that was used by BB & FAAFA as an excuse to ridicule and harass BFP. You want to talk about vexatious process? Each and every post that they made in those sockpuppet investigations and RFCU requests that exhibited any sign of incivility will result in a diff right here. [Partially refactored.] Dino 14:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't think it's fair to call BenBurch and FAAFA Guy's "clients". While he has stated that they "seem somewhat more open to the idea of pulling back", [1] he has treated all of the parties more or less equally.-- Grand Slam 7 | Talk 19:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I think this language is just another example of Dean's complete failure to understand how Wikipedia works. He's a lawyer, and he's brought the lawyer's world-view (adversarial, taking sides) to this dispute from the outset. The fact that Wikipedia is not a law court, this is not a legal process, and the use of legal language and legal threats is generally seen as extremely unhelpful, appears to have passed him by despite numerous attempts by various admins to inform him. Dean is, however, welcome to bring in the sockpuppet investigations - Bryan has about a dozen sockpuppets conclusively proven, but if Dino wants to dig Bryan's grave a bit deeper then I don't see we can stop him. Guy ( Help!) 10:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I have absolutely no doubt, sir, that if you succeed in dragging his case in here, BenBurch will gleefully drag in each and every one of the sockpuppet investigations. But I remind you that I was reinstated after a thorough investigation at Unblock-en-l. It's a case of friends and family members and co-workers sharing IP addresses and posting on the same article Talk page because they have a shared interest.
Maybe you're unfamiliar with this process, sir. But sometimes friends, co-workers and family members have shared interests, and sometimes they use the same computer, without satisfying the Wikipedia definition of a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. The Wikipedia article about sockpuppets and meatpuppets clearly describes that situation and cautions those who suspect sockpuppetry to consider such situations. You and the others here who think like you have carefully ignored that portion of official Wikipedia policy.
If the others shared my patience for the Unblock-en-l process (which can be slow and laborious) and if their experiences hadn't completely destroyed their trust in Wikipedia administrators, I am absolutely certain that by now they'd be unblocked as well. RFCU produces false positives; in at least one case where the alleged sockpuppet was permablocked by a trigger-happy admin, RFCU's result was "Possible," one step below "Likely" and two steps below "Confirmed"; in at least four cases where the alleged sockpuppets were permablocked by trigger-happy admins, there wasn't even an RFCU at all; and in at least one case, the RFCU actually cleared the so-called sockpuppet but a trigger-happy admin permablocked him anyway.
That would be you, sir.
BenBurch and FAAFA (and now you, sir) have consistently misrepresented all of these cases as "Confirmed." As if it had been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that all of these accounts arose from BFP's hosiery drawer.
The shared interest of all these parties was triggered on December 5 when BenBurch said to BFP, "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on." At that moment, BFP's father-in-law and brother-in-law happened to be present, and he directed their attention to the computer screen before it was deleted. The father-in-law promptly registered as ArlingtonTX; the brother-in-law promptly registered as 12ptHelvetica; and the seeds of the current conflict had been sown.
Thanks for that moment of barbarity, Ben. Dino 14:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Inviting new people to join to carry on a battle is not permitted either and violates the sockpuppet policy. There are other ways of dealing with editors you are in dispute with. Thatcher131 17:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
To the best of my knowledge, no one was invited, sir. They volunteered. Some families are like that when a member of the family has been told, "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on." Dino 00:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I think it's called "gang tactics". Guy ( Help!) 20:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
And each and every member of that "gang" was permablocked, sir, including me. All of the others were permablocked after being relentlessly ridiculed and hectored during WP:SSP and WP:RFCU. Every last one of them with no exceptions, sir, including their versions of BenBurch. And none of them had engaged in Wikistalking. JzG, is that the process you're prescribing for this gang as well? Dino 15:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Because (a) there were more than two of them, (b) they all edited from the same IP so in another sense there was only one (Bryan), (c) all the edits were confrontational or disputatious and (d) the edits of all the accounts were indistinguishable. None of these apply to the so-called "gang of two", BenBurch and FAAFA. Guy ( Help!) 19:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
(b) they all edited from the same IP so in another sense there was only one (Bryan), (c) all the edits were confrontational or disputatious and (d) the edits of all the accounts were indistinguishable.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Your consistent distortion of the facts in order to conceal the glaring weaknesses in your case is unbecoming to your status as an administrator, sir. See below regarding the IP addresses. Also, one of the alleged sockpuppets (ClemsonTiger) made approximately 200 very constructive, non-confrontational and completely uncontroversial edits to baseball-related articles, including anti-vandalism efforts and the creation of at least one new article Barry Bonnell, before anyone involved in this dispute became aware of his existence. Compared to BenBurch, ClemsonTiger was a saint. But ClemsonTiger is permanently banned. There were many distinctions clearly visible between these accounts. Some of them were entirely occupied with Free Republic and pursuing accusations against BenBurch and FAAFA (probably because they had seen the "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on" remark), but others were not. Dino 16:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Which was almost immediately reverted by me because I realized it was uncvil, and you only know about it because you dug through my history. Sad that is all you have to dredge up each and every time you deal with me, an act which in itself is wholly uncivil and a personal attack. -- BenBurch 19:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oh, the barbarity ! You sir, are a barbarous and barbaric BARBARIAN!! (I suspect that you might be from the Barbary Coast as well) Have you no sense of decency, sir?! ;-) - FAAFA 00:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
... and you only know about it because you dug through my history.
I know about it because you were engaged in an active, real-time conversation with BFP when you posted it, you waited until you were certain he'd seen it because he reacted to it, and then you deleted it. He then told me about it. Don't continue trying to rewrite history. It's all there in the automatic records Wikipedia keeps. Dino 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
He never reacted to it until after I had refactored it. -- BenBurch 20:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You left it there for several minutes, at a time when you were engaged in an active, real-time conversation with him. In those conditions you could be sure he had seen it, even though he hadn't posted a response yet. Dino 20:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Care to change your story again? Sad. -- BenBurch 20:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The "story" has never changed, sir. You provoked much of BFP's family with that one comment, and your continued and deliberate baiting and provocation continue to produce the result you seek: provoking people. BFP doesn't have to ask for help. He never did. Any one of his family and friends could take one look at your posts to him and immediately want to register an account at Wikipedia. Your baiting must stop, sir. Dino 23:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't expect it will stop. BenBurch is a BARBARIAN! - FAAFA
  • Our own User:Tbeatty provides a perfect example of an incivil posting being reverted in this very proceeding; [2]. Now, I don't think he should be abused for having done this, do you? -- BenBurch 14:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I reverted my own post as non-germane. Not sure how it was uncivil. I found it humorous. I didn't write anything or comment on it. Contrast it to the note left on my talk page. -- Tbeatty 14:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Tbeatty a) reverted an old, never-used drawing (of a penis) twice b) created a talk page about the drawing. He obviously had concerns over it. I thought it important to let him know the history. link and link link - FAAFA 23:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
And here is yet another example of Tbeatty's own 'trolling' - on the talk page of one of THE most hotly contested articles on all of Wiki - the 9/11 attacks. (so contentious that I don't participate!) TBeatty wrote:"How about "Paranoid Fantasies of Conspiracy Theorist?" Or if that's too POV, we could go with with "Conpiracy Theories of Paranoid Fanatics". --User:Tbeatty 06:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC) link - FAAFA 23:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Once again, you completely misrepresent reality. I was looking for more evidence of your misconduct and the logs showed you had uploaded Image:Ejacxto.jpg . I went to see what kind of contribution you had made but it was blank. I saw that there were revision. I clicked the wrong link and it executed a reversion. I was not expecting that nor did I know how to fix it. I left a helpme tag on the talk page to ask for assistance. [3]. This is clearly obvious. I figured it out before help arrived and youcan clearly see that I reverted the reversion to the last image uploaded. I made no comment as to the contents of the picture or the author since as far as I could tell, it was blank. And then you left this additional comment there [4], so I guess I found your misconduct in a round-a-bout way. -- Tbeatty 04:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

(UI) Note to Tbeatty : 1) "you completely misrepresent reality" is incivil and could be considered personal attack. Please refrain from such attacks in the future. (I could refactor it but that's not my style 2) Your recent false denials about not defaming Clinton as a murderer, then having to admit "you caught me" are still fresh on this board and in the minds of the readers, you might consider being more circumspect 3) quit refactoring what I write - FAAFA 08:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Agreed - Lots of wiki lawyering going on above, lots of personal attacks and cruft mungering. However the point of this section is to debate the proposal. As none of the above editors seem to want to state their opinion on the proposal with a vote, I am assuming that it should be carried. Personally I would love to hear from BryanFromPalatine and get his side of the story. It seems to me that there is a giant wave of hostility from a small group of likeminded editors trying very hard to run the solo gunman out of town. Mobile 01 Talk 12:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Contacts made to TJ Walker and WMF not considered

1) Because the issues of any contacts made to author TJ Walker and to the Wikimedia Foundation have not previously been the subject of any dispute resolution proceeding, they will not be considered by this committee at this time.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. If BenBurch hadn't refused my RfM, for example, we might have worked it all out at that level, including the Walker/WMF issues; and the Committee's valuable time might not now be invested in this dispute. Opposing parties should not be rewarded for their refusal to initiate proper dispute resolution on these issues. Also, WP:OFFICE can be expected to take reasonably good care of itself. Dino 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Objection ! No Way, José ! : This is the most important issue of the whole RfA. I have conclusive proof that Hinnen was wholly and intentionally dishonest and deceitful from day one, and acted far outside the bounds of acceptable user conduct by coercing a WMF employee to edit on his behalf through misrepresentation, deceit, and duplicity, along with implied and/or overt threats of legal action - all which justified my suspension of AGF towards Hinnen, as permissible under AGF. I am so positive that Hinnen's specious claim that TJ Walker 'admitted' to him that 'he didn't write' his 1999 article - the spurious claim that is responsible for this whole sordid mess is a fabrication - that If I am wrong, I implore the Arbitration committee to permanently ban me.
Hinnen's very first edit ( Jan. 15 edit #1) was to the Free Republic article discussion page announcing that he had coerced WMF employee Carolyn Doran (not a lawyer - not an active editor, and as such, not an expert on WP) to edit on his behalf, to his POV, after claiming that he (Hinnen) had contacted noted and notable author, pundit, and media coach TJ Walker ( CBS and National Review and TJ's Insights) who supposedly 'admitted' to Hinnen that he 'did not write' his 1999 article entitled Is the FreeRepublic.Com Really DeathThreat.Com? ( webarchive of article) Hinnen claimed (in his very first edit): "I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." (quotation marks Hinnen's) and raised the spectre of a possible libel suit against Wikipedia if she didn't. See my evidence page for more evidence - FAAFA 00:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
No way : This is the most important issue of the whole RfA.
Then you should have submitted it for dispute resolution before now, sir. Even when your friend Ben refused to participate in RfM, you could have started your own on this issue, and named me as the only other participant. If it was that important to you, sir, you should have taken steps to ensure that the dispute resolution process was exhausted before stepping in here with it. It's like skipping the trial court, skipping the appellate court, and filing your case for the first time in the United States Supreme Court. No way you should be allowed to do this. Dino 01:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
NOTE: FAAFA has already violated the rules of ArbCom procedure by deleting the preceding paragraph. diff Dino 02:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Because (a) your claims are false, (yet again) and (b) you're trolling. Dispute resolution:
link : ANi
link : Admin
link : Admin
link : Admin
link : WMF
link : WMF
link : ANi - FAAFA 02:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
That's not dispute resolution, sir. Nor is it a substitute for dispute resolution. According to JzG, that's trying to solicit admins to take your side in a content dispute. He says that it's vexatious and disruptive, sir. Dino 02:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. FAAFA, now you know not to do that. I am inclined to say two things about this. (1): This is probably the most important part of the case and (2): It was off wiki, to a foundation employee who has not been heard from since. It is very difficult to be objective with, and therefore may not be acceptable to arbcom. Prodego talk 02:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Yeah - that needs to be addressed as well. A foundation employee makes an edit without any edit summary, an edit that any editor would know will cause controversy, and then that employee and another foundation employee (Danny Wool) (and I think even Jimbo) don't even bother to respond to the repeated requests from editors and Admins to explain the edit and whether or not it was an WP:OFFICE action, as DeanHinnen claimed. Yeah - that too. - FAAFA 02:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Danny did talk to me about it. He confirmed some things, although he did not mention Office status. I assume it was not an Office action, since Office actions must be designated as such. Prodego talk 02:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:

Again, as before, the personal attacks [5] continue by FAAFA. How is a party participating in the ArbCom 'trolling?' This is the language that escalates almsot every edit he makes. -- Tbeatty 02:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Considering that this user, Tbeatty a) rationalised and defended a threat posted on my user page as being a genuine good-faith 'movie recommendation' when every other person considered it a threat or at least harassment link b) theorized that Hinnen might have actually called and spoken to TJWalker the pro ballplayer rather than TJWalker the author (I kid you not) c) refactored my user page where I called bush 'awol' link d) deleted my comments that he felt impugned HIM three times link - I feel that his complaints are actually pretty funny! - FAAFA 03:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Every other person including you saw it as a non-threat and it was overly dramatic. You mischaracterized the other two things as well and your poisoning the well style of argument is well known. For those keeping score at home, a SPA posted the cover of "Payback" to FAAFA's page after FAAFA was blocked for personal attack. Certainly harassment as I pointed out and warranted a block for the vandal, but that's all it was. ( update after he saw that no one thought it was a death threat) -- Tbeatty 07:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Tbeatty wrote:"I'm confused. What was the death threat? Usually a Death Threat includes a threat and all I saw from the diffs was a movie recommendation. I haven't seen the movie though, but it stars Mel Gibson so pretty mainstream." Link Any interested party need only look at this user's own actions, including his repeated misuse of BLP to remove content he doesn't like, even on talk pages. Link Note his interaction with admins Guy and Gamailel, especially when TBeatty was fighting tooth-and-nail to protect the 'reputation' of conservative mouthpiece, cum-gay-prostitute Jeff Gannon (note regarding my use of the preposition 'cum') solely (I allege) because he's conservative. Tbeatty had no such qualms (or BLP concerns) over writing that Bill Clinton murdered multiple individuals. He also added a BIO template onto the article of an organization that he supports - the now-defunct Islamophobic hate group Protest Warrior to squelch valid criticism. Never have I seen an editor misuse BLP as he has. - Link - FAAFA 21:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Another accusation without merit or facts as I never wrote any such thing. You even put back your BLP defamatory comments "cum-gay-prostitute" about a living person in this hearing. It is completely unacceptable. [6] Tbeatty 22:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Without merit? TBeatty starts and repeatededly adds to a list of 'suspicious deaths', a clear BLP violation, and TBeatty re-ads BLP-violating disproven conspiracy theories, over valid BLP objections. (it's OK with him to violate everything he CLAIMS to stand for, cause Clinton is a liberal) By the way, thats the Latin use of 'cum' as in 'also known as'- FAAFA 22:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You caught me. I actually started that article with this line. A year ago and before there was BLP. -- Tbeatty 23:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I 'caught' you ? Like this is all a game or a joke for you? You RE-ADDED BLP-violating disproven conspiracy theories that Clinton murdered people, over valid BLP objections, long after BLP was formulated. - FAAFA 23:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Clerk note: Please do not delete or modify evidence or proposals submitted by other parties (or others). See talk page for more. Newyorkbrad 02:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you, Brad. Dino 12:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Okay - FAAFA

I believe that this is a very serious issue as it possibly involves fraudulent representations made to Wikimedia Foundation staff in order to made edits to sway consensus on an article, specific and verifiable misrepresentations by whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen and libel against an ongoing enterprise, American Politics Journal, in violation of BLP. These actions of the staff member were then misrepresented as an OFFICE action in order to bully other editors from reverting them. Specifically, APJ was accused of publishing a Hoax article pretending to be an article by TJ Walker, it was claimed that the article was removed from APJ after pressure from whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen, and that TJ Walker never wrote this article. We now know all three of those representations to be absolute falsehoods. -- BenBurch 23:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Regardless of these arguments, there were several opportunities to present these concerns in dispute resolution and they were rejected. Parties should not now be rewarded for rejecting the initial and intermediate levels of dispute resolution on these issues. Go ahead and ask for RfM if it's that important. We have all the time in the world. Dino 01:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Let me make this explicitly clear to all: Carolyn's edit was not an office action. Plain and simple, it was not. There need be no more debate, confusion, and (wiki)lawyering on this point. Picaroon 01:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

That was my first hour on this site besides reading the articles. I had no clue that there was any distinction between Carolyn the WP:OFFICE employee, acting in her official capacity, and Carolyn the ordinary Wikipedia member. I somehow got the impression that all of her actions on this site were official actions, and I apologize to the Administrators and Arbitrators for that misunderstanding. Newbies make mistakes. Dino 02:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Or are you arguing that it ought to be? -- BenBurch 04:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:BITE is already official Wikipedia policy. I feel no need to argue that it ought to be. Dino 12:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:BITE is an official guideline, not a policy. - FAAFA 20:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
More hairsplitting. Dino 14:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Why on earth would we exclude consideration of Hinnen's legal threats based on unverifiable original research? Curious proposal. Guy ( Help!) 09:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
That's not what you're proposing here, sir. My so-called "legal threats" are discussed far below. What you're proposing in this section is an investigation into my contacts to WMF and TJ Walker. An entirely different matter, sir, and one that was never previously reviewed at any level of dispute resolution. FAAFA and BenBurch should not be rewarded for refusing to participate in dispute resolution on this issue. Dino 18:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Well..... excuuuse me! I'm not much on baseball, and I thought that TBeatty must have been referring to a Texas Ranger baseball player when he wrote: "There are plenty of explanations that don't include lying including different recollections as well as multiple people name TJ Walker. You have no idea whether he talked to TJ Walker or not (or which TJ walker, texas ranger)" link - but there is no Texas Ranger ballplayer named TJ Walker (or any Walker)! It appears that TBeatty was actually proposing that DeanHinnen might have called the fictional TV character Walker Texas Ranger played by actor Chuck Norris! (er....didn't that show end production in 2001?) Yikes! That is scary. A truly stunning revelation that forces me to reassess my evaluation of TBeatty entirely. - FAAFA 10:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

My only concern in that case was your use of the word lying to describe another editors actions. Considering that you made an honest mistake, twice, about the Walker I was referring to, I would hope you would understand how honest mistakes may happen without having to call someone a liar [7]. I thought it lacked and assumption of good faith and I simply asked you to stop calling Dean a liar [8]. Shouting well..... excuuuse me! is another typical example of your reaction. No one here pointed out your mistake or belittled you for not getting the reference as it was a trifle. Why are you now shouting? -- Tbeatty 14:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Well..... excuuuse me again! Until I researched it in detail, and found the actual quote, I could have never imagined that you would have actually been suggesting that Hinnen had called, and spoken to a fictional TV character. Now that I discover that is what you were suggesting, I'm nearly speechless. - FAAFA 14:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Dino appears to be asking the committee to accept his assertions but not challenge the basis for them. That is unacceptable. This is, and always has been, unverifiable original research contradicted by numerous credible sources. A credible rationale for this finding eludes me, unless it's to prevent ArbCom from ruling that it is indeed unverifiable original research, in which case the term "no thanks" fits just nicely. Guy ( Help!) 14:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't think Dino is asking the committee to accept anything. This seems like yet another attempt to cloud the issues with extendined wikilawyering. Frankly if none of you have anything new to add in each section then you might as well delete the rest and stick to the topics as defined. user GUY seems to be showing a distinct loathing towards user Dino and his constant tirades and insults do nothing for his credibility here. Mobile 01 Talk 12:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Dean / Bryan

1) ArbCo should please consider urgently whether comments like this [9] imply that the account User:DeanHinnen either is or is being shared with the banned User:BryanFromPalatine (note use of first person in response to questions regarding interaction between Bryan and BenBurch / FAAFA) Guy ( Help!) 09:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Note that what I was actually responding to was JzG's reference to WP:KETTLE, a statement directed to me, not BFP. There was nothing the least bit ambiguous about it. Dino 11:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
So you say, but your style tends to be supercilious and legalistic whereas Bryan's is more combative, and looking at the contributions recently it appears to me very much as if Bryan is editing from your account, as is also strongly implied by the use of first person in respect of text which explicitly refers to Bryan's dispute with the other parties and that within a section which is almost entirely made up of similar assertions, none of which relate to "Dean" Hinnen and all of which relate to "Bryan". You will be well aware that some are sceptical that the two are indeed separate at all. Guy ( Help!) 10:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
... but your style tends to be supercilious and legalistic whereas Bryan's is more combative ...
It's good of you to finally notice. While our interests and goals are similar, our personal styles in pursuing them are polar opposites. I am a negotiator and a diplomat. BFP is a warrior. If he negotiates at all, he prefers to fight first, gain the upper hand and then negotiate from a position of strength. The fact that I don't take the bait that is constantly being shoved in my face, while BFP took the bait with a snarl every time he got the slightest whiff of it, should tell you everything you need to know about this false accusation, sir. Dino 12:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oh yes, we've all noticed your "diplomacy" and "negotiating" style :o) Guy ( Help!) 21:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
At some point, sir, everyone runs out of patience when faced with this relentless mockery and baiting. Even me. Dino 22:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
In your case, that appears to have been before you even arrived. You have been aggressive and vexatious from the outset. Guy ( Help!) 16:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Well, you know how this works. Show us a few diffs proving that I was "aggressive and vexatious from the outset." Dino 18:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
How terribly vexatious and aggressive of me. Oh dear. [10]
There I am, being vexatious and aggressive again. Dreadful. [11]
Vexatious intervention in a sockpuppet investigation. Shameful. [12]
A pattern of vexatious and aggressive edits was emerging. Why wasn't I banned on sight? [13] [14] [15] Dino 19:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This is covered below. Guy ( Help!) 20:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy ( Help!) 09:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Posting " WP:KETTLE" in a direct response to a post by Dino subsumes that I am the Pot calling the Kettles black. The fact that I'm not BFP has already been cleared up. Dino 14:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Haven't you been reading what the admins and others have posted here at all? You are the only one here, including the fellow from en-unblock-l who thinks this matter has been cleared up. And you have been instructed already that there is zero binding status to an unblock decision from that list. As has been noted they do not "check Bona Fides." I assert that you either are BryanFromPalatine, posting using his putative brother's name or some other person acting entirely as his agent here - identical for the purposes of Wikipedia. -- BenBurch 14:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Also: BryanFromPalatine - disruptive user who registers many sockpuppet accounts in order to pursuer biased edits of Free Republic and argue for his unblocking and for sanctions against those whose political views oppose his; DeanHinnen - disruptive user who continues the campaign of biased editing, pleading for BryanFromPalatine, and for sanctions against those same users, from the same IP address. A difference which makes no difference is no difference. Guy ( Help!) 16:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
And honestly, I don't know why we don't close the matter of Dean Hinnen with that. Even if he is the "Brother" of Bryan From Palatine, and not a sock puppet, there certainly is a neat little Meat Puppet cluster here in NE Illinois. I have changed my mind that I think he could ever be a good editor, and I think he needs to be block JUST for the sockpupptry. Even in this process here he has been truculent, vexatious and had displayed a mendacity that is the opposite of what a Wikipedia editor ought to be. -- BenBurch 00:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
To summarize: if two family members, co-workers or schoolmates named Ricky and Ronnie are editing from the same IP address and Ricky is a Freeper, then Ronnie had better be a happy little Daily Kos camper or completely apolitical. If they're both Freepers, JzG wants them both banned as sockpuppets, and he doesn't object if BenBurch and FAAFA subject them to relentless ridicule and harassment during WP:SSP and WP:RFCU.
Furthermore, if BenBurch and FAAFA attack Ricky and relentlessly ridicule and harass him into self-destruction, then Ronnie had better greet BenBurch and FAAFA as long-lost bosom buddies or ignore them. Otherwise, JzG will insist that Ronnie must be immediately banned as a sockpuppet.
It is ridiculous to expect that two editors who share an IP address must be polar opposites. Chances are that they will have similar interests. And chances are that when one of them is tormented into self-destruction, the other one isn't going to stand idly by.
When an editor proves at Unblock-en-l that he is not a sockpuppet and he is unblocked, he should be able to rely on that decision. One element that hasn't yet been discussed is WP:AGF. That philosophy mitigates in favor of allowing an Unblock-en-l decision to stand unchallenged, in the absence of powerful new evidence that the user is a sockpuppet. Otherwise, why should anyone bother with Unblock-en-l at all? Dino 16:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Except that, per previous ArbCom rulings, there is no need to distinguish between sockpuppets and meatpuppets, especially when they are as disruptive and disputatious as you are. Your constant harping on about "proof" is also false, what happened was that a small group active on the unblock list decided to assume good faith. They have repeatedly stated precisely that: the finding is ion no way binding or a precedent, it is just their opinion. I don't know how many times we are going to have to corrcet this canard of yours before you finally stop repeating it. Guy ( Help!) 22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Apposed. - The edit provided does not seem to imply anything but that which Dino says it does. Mobile 01 Talk 12:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

ArbCom to contact Carolyn Doran of WMF

Hinnen's very first edit ( Jan. 15 edit #1) was to the Free Republic article discussion page after he had coerced WMF employee Carolyn Doran to edit for him. Doran had urged Hinnen to open an account and make the edits himself. Hinnen refused, claiming he would be seen as a 'vandal' and convinced Ms. Doran to edit on his behalf to his POV, based on unconfirmed and dubious OR. He did however open an account that same day after Doran's edits were reverted by an Admin suspecting impersonation. Evidence shows that Hinnen almost certainly used the threat of legal action against Carolyn Doran personally - or Carolyn Doran as acting as an 'agent' on behalf of Wikipedia to coerce her to edit an article where he has a clear COI. Hinnen has repeatedly postulated that in the event of successful libel action against Wikipedia any WMF employee who was asked to remove 'libelous' content and declined could be a held personally liable. On the day (01-15-07) that Hinnen spoke with Doran 4 times, one of her very few edits was to remove her name from a list of WMF employees, clear evidence that she had a realistic fear of a lawsuit from DeanHinnen or DeanHinnen acting on behalf of Free Republic as an admitted member of their 'legal team'. It is critical to this proceeding that Ms. Doran be contacted regarding the events of 01-15-07 including if she called 'TJ Walker' as Hinnen has suggested, if anyone called her claiming to be TJ Walker, and the reason she felt it necessary to delete her own name from the list of WMF employees.

As a separate issue, I suggest that ArbCom examine if the actions the hard-working well-meaning Admins involved in the early stages of this matter were sufficiently proactive. I asked that they contact Doran early on, and I believe that DeanHinnen would have likely have been permanently (or temporarily pending more investigation) banned right after speaking with Ms. Doran for several egregious violations of WP, including overt legal threats. This would have saved 100's of hours of argument by dozens people including numerous Admins. They chose to treat the whole matter as a 'content dispute' with Ms. Doran's coerced edits, motivated by fear of legal action, deemed nothing more than the edits of any other editor instead. I believe this to be serious but non-malicious error in judgment, perhaps due to the mettlesome multiple layers of dispute resolution bureaucracy, or perhaps due to not wanting to get personally involved, an understandable concern. That is why I contacted Danny Wool who didn't even bother to respond to my concerns posted on his talk page. This should be addressed as well. I also request that WMF appoint someone to monitor their pages and respond to non-trivial questions and comments in a timely manner.

Proposed: FaAfA 23:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Endorsed This is one of the most important points here; Whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen attempted to manipulate Wikipedia in this fashion. -- BenBurch 16:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Partial endorse. The whole saga with Ms. Doran needs to be investigated by the ArbCom. If nothing else, for transparency reasons. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Go for it. Dino 16:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Partial endorse The title of this proposal is right on target although I'm not certain I can agree with every portion of it (the claim that Carolyn Doran feared personal liability based on a single edit appears to be farfetched). There's definitely a need to clarify her role, as well as a need to clarify the strong appearance that her participation at this article resulted from a request from a disputant whose claims may have been fallacious. Durova Charge! 19:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Partial endorse. Someone talk to the lady and lets for once and for all find out the truth, maybe then the postulating and hypertheticals can stop. Mobile 01 Talk 12:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

ArbCom to contact police

Clerk note: Removed as outside the scope of a Wikipedia arbitration proceeding. In response to a comment here, I will urge that reports of the case elsewhere on Wikipedia be modified to exclude the language objected to. Newyorkbrad 21:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

This case to be closed

It seems to me that we have the following situation:

  • User:BryanFromPalatine is banned, there is no suggestion this ban be lifted, it was discussed several times by admins and the community before being enacted and was a response to clear abuse by BryanFromPalatine
  • User:DeanHinnen edits from the same IP address, makes legal threats, is pursuing BryanFromPalatine's vendetta against FAAFA and BenBurch
  • Both BryanFromPalatine and DeanHinnen claim to be or have been members of the Free Republic legal team
  • There is a source that states that the FR legal team member was Bryan Hinnen, middle name Dean [16], not a good source, but it certainly fits the observed facts. Note: I have addressed above the canard that using the words "Bryan" and "Hinnen" in conjunction is somehow a privacy violation - DeanHinnen introduced the supposed persona of his brother Bryan, I am simply joining the dots and in this instance also pointing out what an external source says; this is reported by APJ as User:Apj-us-nyc and backed by user:Eschoir on /Evidence. Both these users appear to ahve off-Wiki knowledge of Dean
  • There is no sense in carrying on the charade of pretending that Bryan and Dean are functionally separate: if they are different individuals (whihc several of us doubt), they are doing the same things for the same people from the same location, so may be treated as if they were the same individual

Therefore I propose that this case be closed as vexatious process, User:DeanHinnen's indefinite block be restored as a ban-evading puppet of User:BryanFromPalatine, and if anyone cares enough User:Fairness And Accuracy For All be banned from the Free Republic article.

I cannot believe how much time we have wasted when right up front we should simply have banned DeanHinnen for legal threats and left it at that. This case is a complete waste of ArbCom's time, and more importantly is unnecessary to fix the actual problem, which is disruptive editing and legal threats by an editor with a conflict of interest, compounded by incivility and trolling by at least one other editor. Dean's sole purpose, it seems to me, is to secure a retaliatory ban on BenBurch and FAAFA. The tortuous arguments below look complex but if you take a step back and think about what the problem is we're being asked to address, the solution jumps right out at you.

So I move that this case be speedily closed as above. Guy ( Help!) 10:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I think FAAFA needs a closer look than just an article ban. -- Tbeatty 14:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, you may be right. Article ban and standard civility parole, that would pass by acclamation at the community noticeboard I think, since a civility parole is no more than an enforcement of what should be done anyway. Guy ( Help!) 15:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply

*Endorse Stick a fork in it. It's done. -- BenBurch 14:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Ben, since you are directly affected by the proposed resolution it may be best for you to step back, and perhaps strike the above. You have not exactly covered yourself in glory, and I think your edits will be under scrutiny for a while yet, but I do not think that you are in the same league as BryanDean or FAAFA. Guy ( Help!) 15:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Fair enough. -- BenBurch 16:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment : I encourage everyone to read Jossi's (who was the highly involved mediator on FR - for which I thank him) comments, then follow the link to the archived FR talk page mentioned, and study my participation - scrutinize it closely. My conduct was acceptable up until the invasion of the Palatine Puppet Platoon, and even after that - during mediation and later- although my civility was less than desirable - my actions (edits) spoke louder than my words (talk page unpleasantness) and I contributed a substantial amount of RS V content which reflects only positively on Free Republic (Dixie Chicks, Tony Snow, Freep at Walter Reed, JimRob bio back to Whitewater days). I have no problem being banned from the Free Republic article - if its is put on Administorial Probabtion. You think you have a Hinnen sock puppet now? (7 (+) confirmed sock accounts? link) Just wait. respectfully - FaAfA (yap) 18:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I tend to agree with most of this aspects of this proposal..except for the outcome proposed. Alot of work has been done by many parties. Most all of the evidence has been presented and while I think that what the evidence reveals is obvious...well its supposed to be that way (after all it *IS* evidence). The fact that things are much clearer *now* is only because of all the effort done to date in this proceeding. To cut the process short now would be a mistake and would be akin to a judge in a criminal case dismissing the case right before sending it to the jury because it became obvious after hearing all the evidence that the accused was innocent (not to imply that anyone is innocent or guilty in this situation). Simply put, the reason things are obvious now, is only because the process is working.
To cut the process short now would be a mistake IMO. Let those affected "have their day in court"...an arbitrator ruling will useful in the future when addressing similiar conduct (perhaps byt the same parties) in the future. Furthermore I agree with Tbeaty above..FaaFa's conduct AND actions should be scrutinized closely, and IMO may not be excuseable despite any claims to the contray as suggested. Dman727 22:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Appose. I can find no logical reason to end these procedings before a verdict is heard. If you end it now then you must find all parties innocent and no action taken. If you wish to have a verdict then let it run it's course. My opinion for what it's worth. Users BenBurch, FAAFA and Dino should be permabanned from editing Free Republic. The three of them have wasted so much time on this along with their enterage of supporters that no one is doing any editing for wikipedia anymore. I checked the contribs of all the 3 editors and they all at one point have made some really good edits. Finish the arbitration so everyone can get back to making wikipedia what it should be. None of this is really helping wikipedia. Mobile 01 Talk 12:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Concerning lawsuit threats from "Dean": :American Politics Journal's publisher had a conversation on Monday, March 12 with Charles Doerksen, the highly-regarded litigator who is in fact the lawyer of record for Free Republic LLC. He was not aware of "Dean"'s recent e-mails to Wikipedia or APJ. It would be safe to say that Wikipedia can quite comfortably disregard any threats emanating from the e-mail account of one "Dean" Hinnen. Something tells me that Mr. Doerksen might also be interested in the Hinnen sock drawer. -- Apj-us-nyc 19:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Arbitrators to read FR Talk archives and refer to 2 RFAr's

A)For the Arbitrators to get a true picture of the history of Free Republic article - whether certain editor's conduct and contributions were in good faith, within the bounds of WP - and if there were mitigating factors which could have lead to lapses of civility and good faith - such as multiple RFCU confirmed sock puppets 'voting' to sway consensus, and provoking other editors - it is desirable perhaps even necessary for all voting Arbitrators to read the Free Republic talk page archives starting with Archive Two and the Anthrax issue, up until the current time frame. Relying on the diffs presented here and in evidence may lead to a distorted picture of the goings-on, as the diffs chosen for evidence concentrate on WP violations and conflict, rather than the good faith efforts of numerous editors to work out differences, compromise, and to work together during the structured mediation by Admin Jossi.

B) It is also proposed that Arbitrators on this RFAr review the two RFAr's involving editor MONGO, and rely on those decisions for guidance and precedent in regards to lapses of NPA and CIVIL between editors with firmly held beliefs - and also if mitigating circumstances such dealing with sockpuppets can be considered when evaluating an editor's possible lapses of NPA and CIVIL. See: Evidence and Proposed decision and Outcome.

Proposed : - FaAfA (yap) 00:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Reply : To Guy below. I don't expect to get the same kind of pass MONGO got. I expect at least a civility parole, and would welcome it - maybe that would help curtail the frequent baiting from two non-admin contributors to this RFAr, and my frequent over-reaction. Again, I encourage Admins to read the FR talk page archives. When I am dealing with reasonable people acting reasonably, I am often (but not always) perfectly reasonable and well within the bounds of WP myself. I'd have to be a hard-working Sysop to get the kind of pass MONGO got - or merit it. (I will note however that many of MONGO's NPA and CIVIL violations had nothing to do with trolls - but were with people who he disagreed with politically - on articles not even related to 9/11) I ask that the Arbitrators consider my NPA and CIVIL lapses against confirmed sock-puppets, and disagreements with one user who has been trying to get me banned for months - provoking me with such actions as vandalising my user page twice (once creating a SPA sock puppet account to do so) and repeatedly deleting what I write on talk pages with bogus BLP claims diff1, diff2, diff3, UNrefactoring other's comments without their permission diff4 - and to consider these actions in the same light as MONGO's 'battles' against ED and Cplot trolls / sock puppets and with a couple users with whom he had long standing disputes. - FaAfA (yap) 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply : To Tbeatty regarding UNrefactoring. Two parties agreed to redact their own comments which they agreed were unhelpful and contentious. Eschoir redacted his own comments. You (then Carlton) UNredacted his comments claiming that they should be archived ? Funny - you never ONCE mentioned 'archiving' talk page comments the NUMEROUS times you redacted my comments! (and yes, you were overstepping you role as an editor to reverse an editor's redaction of his OWN comments) - FaAfA (yap) 18:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Are you trying to claim that you merit the kind of pass which MONGO got there? If so you're well of base. MONGO was a sysop, one of the hardest working people on the project, has a history of years of hard work, and was viciously attacked solely for his attempts to maintain Wikipedia policy. Not even close, I'm afraid. Guy ( Help!) 18:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm just an ogre.-- MONGO 08:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
It would seem to me that the arbitrators would have to look at the history of this article anyway just to understand the whole picture. My own experience with user benburch and Dino have been nothing but civil. FAAFA does tend to stir the pot a bit, but I am not sure he/she deliberately tries to break the rules. This section seems pointless. Mobile 01 Talk 12:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Once again, FAAFA most recent evidence of others wrongdoing was an excuse for an inflammatory edit summary [17]. And as usual, this generated more heat than light. [18]. -- Tbeatty 15:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Request Checkuser as part of ArbCom (withdrawn)

Similiar editing styles (i.e. language used such as "Hinnen sock drawer" and "Family sock drawer")

Both from NYC area. [19] vs. name of apj-us-nyc. (I'm in SoCal, Conspiracy-Boy) -proof- Nice try though ! FREE FaAfA ! (yap)

Dovetailing edits. FAAFA

  • 13:24, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Zombietime (replaced ref 1, non rs v blog with The Age) (top)
  • 13:20, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Zombietime (→The Flight 93 National Memorial - added RCP and LGF - zombie credits them in his article as raising the issue first)
  • 13:11, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Zombietime (added pro israel, anti abortion)
  • 13:03, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zombietime (→My next concern) (top)
  • 12:41, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Zombietime (rewrote intro to reflect reality. his most current report is on an art gallery opening!)
  • 12:23, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zombietime (→My next concern)

apj

  • 12:37, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop (→This case to be closed) (top)
  • 12:35, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop (→This case to be closed)
  • 12:31, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Evidence (→Evidence presented by American Politics Journal)
  • 12:28, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Evidence (→Regarding Dean Hinnen)

And FAAFA

  • 13:23, March 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop (→Arbitrators to read FR Talk archives and refer to 2 RFAr's)
  • 13:08, March 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop (→Arbitrators to read FR Talk archives and refer to 2 RFAr's)

apj

  • 13:08, March 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Apj.jpg (→Licensing) (top)
  • 13:07, March 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Fairness And Accuracy For All (→Copyright problems with Image:Apj.jpg)
  • 13:06, March 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Fairness And Accuracy For All (→Copyright problems with Image:Apj.jpg)


Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support - What a silly allegation. People post at the same times because we share a diurnal cycle. Settle it by doing a checkuser, please. -- BenBurch 21:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support - (I'm in SoCal, Conspiracy-Boy) -proof- Nice try though ! FREE FaAfA ! (yap)
Support – ... and I'm in New York. Yagoddaproblemwiddat? -- Apj-us-nyc 00:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Leave it on the page. It's evidence of Tbeatty's thinking, conduct, and 'AGF'. FREE FaAfA ! (yap)
Comment by others:
Support to clear the air, but remind FaAfA of the old saying "To get out of a hole, the first thing one must do is stop digging." SirFozzie 21:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn I've withdrawn the request as non-productive. FAAFA wants to have it on the page as a withdrawn request rather than just a removal. either way is okay with me. -- Tbeatty 22:41, 12 March 2007

Proposed temporary injunctions

Enjoining the parties from contact with each other

Due to cross-allegations of harassment and incivility, and cross-allegations of a conflict of interest regarding the Free Republic article, for the duration of this arbitration:

1) None of the parties shall edit the Free Republic article or its Talk page;

2) Fairness And Accuracy For All and BenBurch shall not edit the User page or User Talk page of DeanHinnen, or the Nancy Pelosi, Bill Nelson or Peter Roskam articles or their Talk pages;

3) DeanHinnen shall not edit the User pages or User Talk pages of Fairness And Accuracy For All and BenBurch; and

4) All three parties shall refrain from editing any article or Talk page whose history shows an edit by an opposing party in the previous ten days.

5) The preceding shall not be construed to prohibit any party from editing his own User or User Talk page, or any page that was edited by an opposing party in violation of this injunction; nor shall the preceding be construed to prohibit DeanHinnen from editing the Nancy Pelosi, Bill Nelson or Peter Roskam articles or their Talk pages.

6) Any party violating this injunction will be subject to an immediate 24-hour block by any administrator. Longer blocks may be contemplated, depending upon the severity of any incivilities involved.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
This is necessary to prevent harassment and incivility. I concede that I have a COI regarding Free Republic, but I allege that the opposing parties also have a COI there. While there appears to be a truce of sorts at the moment, I am not confident that it will last; and the only reason it now exists is that I'm not taking their bait. JzG told us to stay away from each other for two weeks on February 3. The moment I posted on BenBurch's Talk page, I was blocked for 24 hours by JzG; but both BB & FAAFA are being allowed to violate JzG's prohibition with complete impunity. I am alleging a WP:STALK violation by two editors. Both the WP:STALK violation and the fact that there are two of them and only one of me have increased the intimidation factor exponentially. This is not conducive to resolution of this arbitration. Page histories will confirm that I started editing the Nancy Pelosi, Bill Nelson or Peter Roskam articles and their Talk pages, and then I was followed there in an effort to continue this dispute. The proof of the allegation is right there in the edit histories. This injunction shouldn't be drafted in a way that rewards such behavior. Dino 20:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I disagree with the 4th part of this injunction. By editing a talk page of an article, one party could essentially own it, by editing it every 10 days. I do not think it would be wise. I disagree with point 2, and I think that all articles should be removed from that point, leaving only user and user talk pages. However, I agree with all other parts of this proposal. Prodego talk 03:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
ALSO I am am technically a party in this arbitration request. Be careful with references to "parties", as that would include me. Prodego talk 17:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I have disagree with all of the above articles of this injunction. Whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen appears to have no other gainful employment than editing Wikipedia or so it might be judged by looking at the frequency with which he edits this project. No article he touches will ever go ten days or even ten hours without him re-editing something on it, and he could therefore make a series of preventative edits to freeze out entire swaths of Wikipedia from any of the other parties to this dispute. In fact I think this may be his intention. Further, I believe that all of my edits to the referenced specific articles pass muster as actual attempts to improve these articles. The only part I might agree to is the prohibition against editing each other's talk pages. But as whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen appears to have created at least one sock puppet already, if this account is not in fact a sock puppet of User:BryanFromPalatine, then the prohibition is in danger of being breeched by socks. -- BenBurch 00:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
If editors are going to be prohibited from editing articles, then they should all be prohibited from editing the same ones. An unproven allegation of stalking should not be enough to prohibit two editors from editing an article and allow one free reign. User:DeanHinnen's behavior on the Peter Roskam article, while it has improved greatly in the last day or two, has been much more contentious and problematic than any of the other editors whose behavior is the subject of this proceeding, and I had to threaten to block him before he stopped insulting the editors there, including editors who had been working on the article long before DH showed up. Gamaliel 21:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Gamaliel, this is within the scope of a preliminary injunction. Arbitrators will review existing evidence and make a decision on whether an injunction is advisable, and the particulars of that injunction. In this case, the evidence is painfully obvious from edit histories of all these articles. We were involved in a content dispute on Free Republic. I left and started editing the other three articles. Then they started editing the other three articles. Administrator JzG previously told us to stay away from each other for two weeks on February 3. He had a good reason for doing so, and it was one of the reasons why I left the Free Republic pages and started editing Peter Roskam. (By the way, I successfully formed a consensus there and the article is much improved.) After a decision on the injunction, we will then proceed to determine whether their editing of those articles violated WP:STALK. Dino 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Of course it is within the scope of ArbCom's authority to issue these kinds of preliminary injunctions. I'm just objecting to the particulars of this injunction. Overall, I don't think it is a bad idea, but it should be applied fairly and uniformly. Gamaliel 00:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I couldn't agree more. But these two should not be rewarded for conduct that may ultimately be identified by the Committee as Wikistalking. Dino 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Rewarded? What is the "reward" in this case? Being allowed to edit an article in which anyone in the world is allowed to edit? Users interested in the same topics, in this case US politics, will naturally edit many of the same articles, and you shouldn't get dibs on an article merely due to an accident of timing. If you can show they went to an article merely to harass you, then that is stalking. But their edits that I have seen appear to be in good faith, and the harrassment guidelines should not be used to ban editors from articles merely because you can't get along with them. This idea offends me because it is contrary to Wikipedia principles, and it bothers me all the more because your conduct was worse than theirs on Peter Roskam, and yet if this injunction passes, you will be the one "rewarded". Gamaliel 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Rewarded? What is the "reward" in this case?
Being permitted to continue their gang tactics and Wikistalking on the three articles I have chosen to edit (and disengage from those two). Read my presentation on the Evidence page, Gamaliel. They are continuing their campaign of mockery, baiting and edit warring on Peter Roskam and elsewhere. I've provided diffs to prove it. I disengaged from a content dispute. They followed me wherever I went to continue the dispute. The evidence is beyond any reasonable doubt, Gamaliel. Dino 02:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
No credible reason is advanced why BenBurch and FAAFA should be restricted from article talk space. Recent emails to me by Dino show nothing but civil debate from BenBurch on those talk pages. We typically do not give tendentious editors a free pass during the course of arbitration cases. Dino's definition of "harrassment" in this case appears to mean opposing edits which look, to my eye, to be distinctly influenced by his acknowledged bias. Guy ( Help!) 10:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Recent emails to me by Dino show nothing but civil debate from BenBurch on those talk pages.
I repeat: Click on the links to diffs that I provided in my section of the Evidence page, sir. The mockery and baiting has continued. In a few cases it has been exceptionally mean-spirited. I have refrained from any dispute resolution measures only because you would instantly describe them as "vexatious" and start interfering with them. You would probably also permablock me for violating the community ban on vexatious process that you've just obtained at WP:ANI. Click on the links on the Evidence page, sir, and see for yourself. Dino 17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I did. I saw you reverting Calton, an editor of long experience and no prior involvement I can see, with an offensive edit summary. I saw BenBurch taking it to Talk, which is what you should have done, and stating the case in measured and civil tones - in marked contrast to your behaviour, as noted above. I have stated this elsewhere, but this case is already a Hydra, thanks largely to you. Guy ( Help!) 21:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Here. Click on this link. [20] No more excuses for not noticing it. I look forward to your response, sir. Dino 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Cant agree with this one, it would have to be all or nothing. All the pages mentioned above are either banned for all 3 editors or none at all. I don't see a problem with edits to discussion pages as long as they remain civil. The article mentioned though should be banned for all or for none. Mobile 01 Talk 12:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Enjoining the parties from contact with each other

Due to cross-allegations of harassment and incivility, and known conflict of interest regarding the Free Republic article, for the duration of this arbitration:

1) None of the parties shall edit the Free Republic article;

2) Fairness And Accuracy For All and BenBurch shall not edit the User page or User Talk page of DeanHinnen;

3) DeanHinnen shall not edit the User pages or User Talk pages of Fairness And Accuracy For All and BenBurch;

4) All three parties shall refrain from initiating threads on the administrators' noticeboards or elsewhere in project space in respect of conduct by the others; any requested interventions to be brought here for the attention of the administrators who are watching this page. The sole exception shall be the posting of any edits which unquestionably violate WP:BLP, which may be posted without mention of user names or attendant comment regarding editing behaviour for consideration at the relevant noticeboards. Note that adjudication of what constitutes a violation of WP:BLP rests with the reviewing administrators and not with the parties;

5) All parties, when participating in article talk pages, are required to restrict themselves to content, not to asserted misbehaviour by other parties, and are required to abide by Wikipedia policies regarding original research, verifiability and sourcing. Judgment of what constitutes neutrality or undue weight should be left to independent parties on these talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I agree to do this regardless of whether it is adopted or not.-- BenBurch 20:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support : as long as a neutral admin monitors the FR article which is being hit by socks and anon IP's from both sides. I myself reverted one edit where a troll added a pic of hooded klansmen. I suggest semi protection from nonregistered users now. - FaAfA 22:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
This is an alternate version of the above proposal by Dino, which proposal has a number of serious flaws in terms of the Wikipedian ethos (for example, he idea that if any of these editors, with their known political bias, makes an edit to an article or its talk, then none of the editors who disagree with that political bias may challenge that edit, runs fundamentally counter to normal practice). It has already been proposed numerous times that the parties refrain from posting to each other's talk pages; I think all have violated that. It has also been proposed that they do not edit articles where they have a conflict of interest. And it has been previously proposed that they refrain from vexatious process, but this, too, has been comprehensively ignored and Dean's proposal above did not touch on this, one of the most disruptive elements of the dispute. Guy ( Help!) 10:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Vexatious process has already been adequately addressed in a WP:ANI community solution that you initiated yourself, and it appears to be working. So I can't believe you've forgotten already. Addressing it again is unnecessary unless there's some sign it's not working. That may explain why it's being "comprehensively ignored," sir. Now perhaps you'd like to explain why you're comprehensively ignoring so very many things. Dino 17:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
ArbCom trumps informal agreements. And you miss the point: this is a more neutral version of the injunction you requested, which was never going to be agreed to because ArbCom is unlikely in the extreme to agree a solution where you, an editor with a clear and stated bias, can unilaterally ban named editors with the opposite point of view simply by deciding to edit an article, in however biased a way. I would be absolutely astonished if they agreed to any such thing. Whereas they might agree to accept an injunction which stops the problem, by restricting the parties from the kinds of behaviour that caused it to escalate. Anyway, what's the problem? Were you intending to engage in further vexatious process? Guy ( Help!) 20:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Here. Click on this link. [21] No more excuses for not noticing it. I look forward to your response, sir. Dino 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
One of the few belly laughs in this entire tedious proceeding. For once I completely agree with FAAFA - the conspiracy bullshit is tiresome in the extreme. Guy ( Help!) 16:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Yeah, that's what I thought. You absolutely refuse to enforce your own admonition to FAAFA to leave me alone for two weeks, and instead join him in pointing at me and having a good belly laugh. As I've said, start acting like an administrator for a change, instead of a petulant child who has erroneously been given the powers of an administrator. At no time did I mention anything about "conspiracy bullshit." The left-wing bias has been described elsewhere as being similar to the "Yankees Suck" chant at a home game of the Boston Red Sox. Nobody is deliberately organizing it. There is no conspiracy. It's just a mob of like-minded people with the same bias. When they hear someone start it, they join in. Dino 19:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Dino, you broke the covenant, you can't then have it applied against others. And FAAFA's comment was a humorous one anyway. No admin would block for something that trivial. Guy ( Help!) 11:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This was never humorous, sir. Even Jerry Lewis would agree that if it was ever funny at some point long ago, it has stopped being funny. One clue about whether it was funny was my repeated use of the words "mockery" and "harassment" and "Wikistalking" prior to this post. Another was your admonition to FAAFA to leave me alone for two weeks.
Regarding your defense of the comment as trivial, one snowball is trivial but an avalanche is another matter. That snowball was just one part of an avalanche.
Dino, you broke the covenant, you can't then have it applied against others.
That's another redefinition then, sir. How many times did you redefine that "strong suggestion" in the two weeks that it lasted? First it was a "strong suggestion," then it was a "final warning," and now it's a "covenant." Dino 17:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Agreed. A better definition of the original proposal. However for the sake of our sanity it would still be a wise move for all three to refrain from editing any of the article in question while this process is in motion. Mobile 01 Talk 13:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Solicitation

1) The parties should refrain from soliciting the involvement of others, either on Wikipedia or through external means.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Of course I'm e-mailing one admin to solicit involvement in the dispute. I'm e-mailing JzG, asking him to enforce the warning to "leave each other alone for two weeks" that he didn't hesitate for an instant to enforce against me with a 24-hour block, but refuses to enforce against BB & FAAFA. The result has been a WP:STALK violation by BB & FAAFA. Dino 21:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • No, you're trying to solicit involvement. I am watching the dispute. I don't need your one-sided versions (for example, the last lot you sent me was some perfectly civil discussion). Guy ( Help!) 09:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The presence of a couple of Tony Soprano's thugs in a bakery, shaking down the cashier for some protection money, can also appear to be "some perfectly civil discussion" when a cop drives by and looks in the window, sir. They were engaging in an edit war just like their other edit wars, with a thin veneer of civility. This thin veneer can vanish in a New York second and I'm well aware of it from multiple previous experiences with these two. As always, you ignore the exponential intimidating effects of gang tactics. Furthermore, you "strongly suggested" that they leave me alone for two weeks. You did not limit your admonition to "be civil." You admonished them to LEAVE ME ALONE. And you admonished them to leave me alone FOR TWO WEEKS. That was February 3. Today is February 14, sir. Do the math. When I made one post to cordially mention the possibility of a debate between BenBurch and my brother after an identical "strong suggestion," you didn't hesitate for a nanosecond to block me for 24 hours, sir. My e-mails to you were the equivalent of the cashier giving the cop the "high sign" from inside the bakery. You saw the "high sign," and completely made a point of ignoring it and drove away. Dino 11:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Your language is once again, excessively combative. To describe other editors as thugs and gangsters, as you do above, is a clear violation of civility, and your diagnosis of the debate you linked me as a shakedown is based, in my view, on your highly partisan interpretation of the subject. Here are the last three: [22], [23], [24]. What is the supposed problem with these edits? It is the normal process of taking a contentious paragraph to talk, and addressed in a perfectly civil manner. If Tony Soprano's thugs behaved with such civility I think his numbers game would be out of business in a week. Note that you reverted not BenBurch or FAAFA when re-inserting this but User:Calton, an editor in good standing with a wide range of articles edited and who I don't believe has a dog in this particular fight. Finally, I admonished both sides to leave the other alone. You violated that almost immediately, as I recall, and "leave him alone" does not mean "leave him to make contentious edits unchallenged". Guy ( Help!) 10:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
First you redefine "strong suggestion" as "final warning." Then you again redefine it to include a single post that offers a civil invitation to a civil debate. Then you again redefine it to exclude edit warring. Do you contemplate any further redefinitions, or is that your final answer? The two weeks you "strongly suggested" don't expire for another two days, so I'd like to know whether my next post is going to result in a permablock. Thanks. Dino 19:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Is this a reply to the abopve? If so it's a non-sequitur. You reverted Calton [25], so there were at least three other editors excluding the material against one - you - including it. That makes you the edit warrior. Pointing the finger at other editors does not change that. Guy ( Help!) 20:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
... so there were at least three other editors excluding the material against one ...
There was one editor excluding the material, sir. Count him. One. Then the Wikistalking gang jumped in. The disagreement on that page was later resolved without the participation of the Wikistalking gang, due to the fact that the Wikistalking gang had stopped participating. Other parties were able to work past their differences once those two agitators stopped agitating. Then the Wikistalking gang resumed their agitations, and I decided to stop participating on the page. But wherever I go, they will follow me and attempt to resume this edit war by challenging and reverting every edit I make. Dino 20:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If taken literally, this prohibition would mean that no party to this dispute could seek the help of an advocate from the wikipedia groups that exist to provide assistance in such circumstances. -- BenBurch 00:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Involvement of AMA in ArbCom cases tends to be a bit of a mixed blessing. Guy ( Help!) 10:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. DeanHinnen is still emailing at least one admin to solicit involvement in the dispute. Guy ( Help!) 20:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
One other thing. Why don't you show everyone the content of those e-mails? I sent you diffs of their posts and said, "You be the judge." That was the entire content of the most recent e-mails. It was your admonition that they were repeatedly violating, sir; and I had been blocked for a single harmless post. Should I have just ignored it? Dino 14:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Diffs are public, full text of emails is not. You say "you be the judge", but when I judge that you were in the wrong, engaging in a revert war against Calton, FAAFA and BenBurch, you seem to be unwilling to accept that. Rather, you ask that the other parties to the dispute be banned fomr the article where, as far as I can tell, you are the one perpetrating an edit war. Why would we do that? Guy ( Help!) 20:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Here. Click on this link. [26] No more excuses for not noticing it. I look forward to your response, sir. Dino 22:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:CANVAS suggests that limited solicitation is often appropriate or at least not inappropriate. Without judging whether Dean's solicitation was kosher, this remedy seems overbroad. TheronJ 15:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you. My inquiries are on the respective Talk pages and do not solicit anyone to join my side. I simply ask for their comments. This should be allowed since the parties I contacted had previous relevant experience. Generally these issues should not be discussed by complete strangers to the facts. Someone with previous experience with the facts doesn't need to start from Square One. Dino 17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I am getting confused here, is GUY "One of the parties" or "One of the Others", he keeps editing in both sections and I am just not sure anymore. It certainly seems that he sees himself as one of the Parties given the vehement way he lashes out at everything Dino tries to answer. If anyones language is once again, excessively combative I would have to say it is user GUY. This is another ridiculous section which by it's very definition is unenforceable. Any one of these editors can email other people off wiki and no one would be the wiser. Those editors with the longest edit histories are far more likely to have email addresses of other editors they have collaborated with in the past. Strike this one and move along. Nothing to see here. Mobile 01 Talk 13:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Sanction on Tbeatty requested (withdrawn)

Several Admins determined that User:Chicagostyledog was a probable sock of BrianFromPalatine. Tbeatty (who actually felt that he should be made wanted to be an Admin when he had under two months on Wiki and less than 600 edits link) took it upon himself to change that finding to being a sock of JoelHazaltine, then accused ME of false accusations, when I was agreeing with the consensus of several Admins. It has been TBeatty's stated goal since at least August to have me permenently banned, and this shows, yet again, that he will do anything to try and accomplish that.

He added the following to the evidence page.

1) "False accusations. [27] Followed by backtracking [28] [29]"

Can't you appoint a conservator for him - or something? A sanction? Thanks - FAAFA 08:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Response to Tbeatty's comments below. 'Baiting' (we're supposed to be 'nice' to sockpuppets now?) is very different than 'false accusations' which the RfAr still says said. I also take people for their word when they request that I be permenently banned. Update : I credit TBeatty for withdrawing his charge. - FAAFA 17:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Several Admins determined that User:Chicagostyledog was a probable sock of BrianFromPalatine.
It wasn't "several Admins," sir. It was actually just one: the ever present, ever petulant JzG. And he was dead wrong. The author was Joehazelton, as subsequent indignant posts by an anonymous IP user believed to be Joehazelton confirmed. Dino 17:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
As far as I can see, you are the only one who decided to bait the sockpuppet on an article talk page. As for admin, I asked a question about what was required to be an admin when I first started Wikipedia and was 11 months ago and was as simple question. I don't think I've ever claimed I 'should' be an admin as that is not what being an admin is about. You can look here if you think I ever put in for adminship. Second, I have no goal of getting you banned. I believe you have earned a block or sanction. I believe it is clear that you are a disruptive editor that needs a 'time out' of sorts so that you can reassess what the project is and how you relate to it. I also thought you deserved a community ban in August when you had 5 blocks in 8 days and numerous other warnings. I have not called for a community ban since then. Here, I presented a proposal to indefinitely ban you only to gauge the reaction as that is the upper most penalty. I believe a 3-6 month block and permanent parole is probably the most appropriate. Or just a permanent ban on political articles. -- Tbeatty 15:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
FAAFA has expressed here that accusation was in good faith. I have removed the section from my evidence. -- Tbeatty 17:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Call for immediate semi/full protection of Free Republic and related articles

1) User:BryanFromPalatine is recruiting Meatpuppets on Free Republic's message board www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795382/posts. I call for an injunction as follows: That Free Republic and any other related articles be immediately semi-protected, and at the sign of registered accounts editing the pages disruptively, the page be fully protected. SirFozzie 03:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
That thread was just pulled.

This thread has been pulled.

Pulled on 01/20/2008 5:09:41 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:

Eschoir ( talk) 14:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision Information

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is not a battleground

1) Wikipedia is not a battleground. It is not an appropriate venue for pursuing external disputes. Combatants in external disputes are expected to check their weapons at the desk and co-operate for the goal of building an encyclopaedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I concur with this entirely, and will seek to edit articles in as neutral a manner as I am able. -- BenBurch 00:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy ( Help!) 20:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Encyclopedia too. Of course. Tbeatty 02:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Obviously necessary here. Durova Charge! 07:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

No legal threats

2) Wikipedia has a policy which forbids legal threats. Legal threats, direct or implied, are not allowed.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Endorse' - This is one of the primary issues in this case. This case has been about the legal intimidation of Wikipedia from the time Dean started his career on Wikipedia. "Nice encyclopedia you have here. It would be a SHAME if something HAPPENED to it!" -- BenBurch 17:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy ( Help!) 20:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Durova Charge! 07:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

No legal threats? Look what landed in the e-mail box of American Politics Journal:

Clerk note: Identifying IP/e-mail traffic information redacted. This information can be e-mailed privately to the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad 19:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply

From: Dean Hinnen

American Politics Journal

I am a member of the legal team for Free Republic LLC and FreeRepublic.com. An article by TJ Walker that you have previously reproduced on this page is libelous. You are responsible for reproducing this libel and disseminating it to a much larger audience for many years, and it was removed very recently.

TJ Walker does not display this article on his website. The only place on the Internet where the article might be found is your website.

Let me clarify that while a few parts of the article are true, others are false and defamatory and we will not tolerate further defamation.

If you restore this article or any libelous part of it for public viewing, I will immediately recommend to our clients, Jim Robinson and John Robinson, that we should consider legal remedies against your site for this libel, dating back to the first day it appeared on your website.

Regards -- Dean Hinnen

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Apj-us-nyc ( talk • contribs)

  • I reformatted the above for readability and added the unsigned tag, just in case I get accused of having posted it myself. WOW I think that this ends the dispute here as Dean is pursuing a legal remedy and therefore can no longer edit Wikipedia - Unless I misunderstood that rule. I wonder how long before FAAFA and Myself get served process by this fellow? JzG should be safe because he is not an American. -- BenBurch 18:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Are you saying that this email was sent to wikipedia directly? I was under the impression that the no legal threats rule was in relation to threats made to editors directly on wikipedia discussion pages. If wikipedia itself contains a libelous entry then they may well expect to receive such letters from more people the Mr Dean Hinnen. However the letter shown does not appear to have been sent to wikipedia, so I am not sure exactly what your point it. Mobile 01 Talk 13:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Legal FYIs may be given, but must be worded in a civil manner

1) If an editor feels compelled to give FYIs about legal matters, civilly worded ones are acceptable. However, no such statement should be drafted or posted in a manner that can in any way be reasonably perceived as an attempt to intimidate another user.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 21:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
As a attorneys, User:BryanFromPalatine and whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen both know how to create a legal intimidation that is one tiny step removed from an actionable legal threat. Consequently, all of their "legal FYIs" may safely be assumed to be exactly that; An attempt at legal intimidation. I believe that User:BryanFromPalatine and whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen should be barred from even mentioning legal concerns on Wikipeda to any degree whatsoever. -- BenBurch 00:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
I am concerned by this, in that Dino's "legal FYIs", which he clearly considers were civilly worded, were interpreted by numerous admins as implied and credible legal threats, especially when combined with Dino's stated position as a legal representative of Free Republic. The correct channel for legal communications is Foundation, it is not acceptable to drop "legal FYIs" into discussions and expect editors to interpret their nuances. It's particularly unacceptable when an editor claims to be legal representative of an organisation. It's also problematic in that the implied threat was related to original research, and the demand for removal of content which was judged by others as correctly sourced. Guy ( Help!) 22:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
... were interpreted by numerous admins as implied and credible legal threats ...
Unreasonably interpreted, sir. At all times, I have made it absolutely crystal clear that I was seeking to PREVENT litigation. In light of the Siegenthaler case and online copyright infringement cases, it should be allowable to express concern about potentially libelous content, or content that may violate copyright law, without one of these two people pointing a finger and screeching, "That was a legal threat!"
The correct channel for legal communications is Foundation ...
Sure enough. That's where I started. I called Carolyn Doran at WMF. She advised me to open an account and remove the libelous material myself. Now I'm being dragged in front of ArbCom for it. Dino 00:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose current wording. Legal FYI's needn't be worded in a civil manner; they need be worded in a non-threatening manner. While Dean passes the first, he doesn't pass the latter. Picaroon
Then how should I have worded my legal FYI, sir? Some are quick to condemn an action as wrong, but seem incapable of proposing an action in the same circumstances that would be right. Propose an action that would have been right for me. Dino 02:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
By not opening your cyber-mouth and saying it at all. That is the only way that you could have done this and not violated WP:LEGAL. -- BenBurch 19:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
By not opening your cyber-mouth and saying it at all.
Thank you for that moment of candor. All that I have to do, in order to end any dispute with BenBurch, is just shut up and go away. Dino 20:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Worth a shot :-)
Dean, you should not have worded any "legal FYI" due to your conflict of interest and especially your claim to be a legal representative of Free Republic. If you have legal issues that need to be raised, take them up with Foundation. Implied legal threats based on unprovable original research contradicted by cited sources does not come under the heading of "legal FYIs", and a lot of people, most of whom were previously uninvolved, agreed that your "legal FYI" was an implied threat. You can't make comments asserting that you want to PREVENT litigation when you claim to be one of the legal team who would presumably pursue such litigation. That is an implied legal threat. I suggest you simply withdraw this section. Also, please drop the courtroom language and the RED SHOUTING. This is not a court of law. Guy ( Help!) 21:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Any statement, no matter how politely worded, having the effect of saying, "change this article or you may be subject to legal action" is prohibited on Wikipedia. You can edut the article through normal processes, or you can pursue legal issues through the Foundation attorney, but you can't do both. Thatcher131 14:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I'll say this once more. I called Carolyn Doran at WMF on Monday morning, January 15, and raised my concerns about libel in Free Republic. She said that I should open a Wikipedia account and remove the libelous material myself. When admins say "Take your legal concerns to the Foundation," and a Foundation employee says, "No no no, just open an account and do it yourself," I open an account and do it myself. In retaliation for that, I'm being dragged in front of ArbCom. But the libelous material was removed, and so there is no danger of litigation. My attempts to communicate these facts, in as civil, amicable and non-threatening language as one could imagine, are being falsely portrayed as legal threats. Dino 14:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
That's not quite the same thing. Do you have any idea how many baseless legal threats are made to the Foundation office in an average week? If there is a credible problem, Foundation steps in. If Foundation says "go do it yourself" that may be interpreted as "go do it yourself and see how well your reasoning stands up" - which in this case it did not. The correct channel for legal communications is Foundation, if Foundation choose not to take action but refer it back to editorial judgement then we can be reasonably sure that the concern is not seen as credible. Plus, Foundation counsel is Brad anyway. Guy ( Help!) 12:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Like all of your other perceptions of this case, you have comprehensively ignored a salient fact that cuts the legs out from under your argument. In this case, Carolyn Doran didn't just tell me "go and do it yourself and see how well your reasoning stands up." First she apparently contacted TJ Walker herself, then she removed the libelous material herself. No, she is not WMF legal counsel; she is the Chief Operating Officer. You have conveniently failed to notice that. Under those circumstances, we can be reasonably sure that the concern was seen as credible, sir.
You will notice that most parties have been discreetly silent since that day. TJ Walker and APJ are both completely silent despite FAAFA's repeated inquiries. WMF is also silent. I'll say nothing about the reasons for their continued silence. But you should try drawing some conclusions that don't proceed from an assumption that I'm lying, and that TJ Walker not only wrote the article, but told the truth in that article. Start from the opposite assumption, and try to figure out why they're all so silent. Dino 15:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Have you noticed how many people have been convinced by your protestation that a member of the legal team posting "I'm just trying to stop you being sued" when they would be doing the suing is not an implied legal threat? And how many people have been convinced by your unverifiable original research? My count of people you've convinced to date is: none at all. Drop the stick and step away from the horse. Guy ( Help!) 16:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Partial Support Firstly I see nothing wrong with pointing out possible consequences of placing libelous material on wiki. How that is done is another question. I would think something along the lines of "Reverting this due to possible libel" as OK, talk page discussion note along the lines of "I think this information should be removed as it could possibly be libelous" would be OK. I don't fully follow Dino explanation for the events though, I fht efoundation member asked him to remove the offending material then for him to remove it was fine. Why the legal FYI was required is a mystery to me. A simple note in the discussion page stating he was removing it under advice from the foundation would have sufficed. GUY, your sarcasm doesnt help the situation. I would suggest you stop trying to provoke Dino and stick to the issues at hand. Mobile 01 Talk 13:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Selected portions of emails from APJ

"3) Now for a hint at things to come. Have you had a look at the "deleted" APJ page? It "looks" blank -- but check out the header (in your Web browser, select View->View Page Source [or similar command]). Obviously, Dean failed to check it out -- along with about 1/3 of our pre-2001 content, which is off the site, slugged with white pages, and being converted to the new content management system we launched on January 8. (Converting 8,500 articles takes time)." Link (I pointed this out the first day - invisible text and META tags have been adjudicated to be the legal equivalent of visible text)

"Right now, we're not uploading old web pages (pre-Oct. 2006) until a major bug with our new CMS is quashed. [personal info redacted] and our Webmaster are hoping to have that issue resolved by the middle of the week.There are a couple of other things that need to be done before the DeathThreat story, which was in fact superseded by a longer story, is restored." (full emails available to admins)- FAAFA 22:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Important update

The following text was added to the 'blank page' in the last few weeks. (since Dino made his 'claims') "A new, updated edition of this article will be appearing at American Politics Journal's new database-driven site during February 2007." same META info from Jan 16

This blank page was (until just recently) the location of the 1999 TJ Walker article entitled "Is the FreeRepublic.Com Really DeathThreat.Com? " An archived version is available here - FAAFA 22:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

"A new, updated edition of this article will be appearing at American Politics Journal's new database-driven site during February 2007."
Take a look at the calendar, gentlemen. Today is March 1. Where is FAAFA with another important update? Dino 17:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Frankly, this has no bearing on the case. At best, this indicates that the TJ Walker article was authentic. Even so, using the article was inappropriate (in my opinion) for two reasons; first, I do not think TJWalker.com constitutes a reliable source, and being republished elsewhere does not necessarily enhance its reliability, and second, it is an attempt to smear Free Republic through guilt be association. Ultimately this is a content issue, and the arbitration committee deals with behavior. Thatcher131 00:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
There is no attempt to 'smear' Free Republic. Numerous RS V sources have documented their death threats. This is a notable part of their history, and I am even the editor who added the qualifiers 'handful' and 'small minority' (of members). I ask that you stop your own smears against the editors who have tried only to write a balanced encylopedic article. Thanks. - FAAFA 02:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Sir, your entire participation here and at Free Republic is peppered with efforts, either accidental or deliberate, to blur some very important distinctions. Every public-access discussion board of a political nature is at risk of occasionally getting death threats against public officials. You have been very diligent about searching them out for Free Republic, and you've gone all the way back to 1999 to find them, sir; but your friends and comrades at Democratic Underground experienced them as well, just last October.
The important issue, sir, is the reaction of the administrators of these discussion boards when such death threats get posted. The purported "TJ Walker" article (self-published, then republished at an extremely partisan left-wing website that takes great pride in ridiculing Bush and his "neo-con cabal") is the only source on the Internet that claims such threats were left undisturbed for months at a time.
That claim is false, sir. It is libelous. And you persistently blur the distinction between "Death threats were posted briefly by vandals, then deleted by FR management" (negative, but accurate) and "Death threats were allowed to stand unmodified for months at a time" (libelous).
Free Republic removes any death threat instantly and bans the author of any such threat permanently. That has been the policy since Day One, and it has been rigorously enforced. If only policies against harassment and Wikistalking were enforced as rigorously here. Dino 16:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Even in this proceeding Hinnen has repeatedly been less than honest. "Death threats were allowed to stand unmodified for months at a time" "Is the FreeRepublic.Com Really DeathThreat.Com? - July 06, 1999" Archive Date of threat June 10, 1999 - FaAfA (yap) 17:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment : DeanHinnen wrote : "I'll say this once more. I called Carolyn Doran at WMF on Monday morning, January 15, and raised my concerns about libel in Free Republic. She said that I should open a Wikipedia account and remove the libelous material myself. When admins say "Take your legal concerns to the Foundation," and a Foundation employee says, "No no no, just open an account and do it yourself," I open an account and do it myself." Except that's not what happened. Hinnen coerced Ms. Doran to edit for him by use of overt or implied legal threat so realistic that she removed her name from a list of WMF employees even before she edited the FR article. Hinnen only opened an account after Doran's edits were deleted by an Admin suspecting impersonation. - FaAfA 22:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Harassment

1) Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Derived from WP:STALK. Dino 21:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Intent to cause negative emotion is unprovable, and in my case I assert that this was never my intention. In addition one would have to be quite a "nervous nelly" to allow oneself to be upset by the mere presence of another editor on an article not matter what one thinks of that person. -- BenBurch 00:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Intent to cause negative emotion is unprovable ...
Then no case of harassment would ever be provable. And yet there are people who prove it beyond a reasonable doubt on a regular basis, sir. The intent may be reasonably inferred from the circumstances. Actions speak louder than words. Dino 17:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Harrassment tends to involve rather more than polite comments on Talk pages in support of the removal of text by other editors, so the Roksam article clearly is not harassment. Harassment has occurred in the matter of the various vexatious processes that led to this case being brought. Guy ( Help!) 21:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
"Polite comments"?!?!?!? Here. Click on this link. [30] No more excuses for not noticing it. I look forward to your response, sir. Dino 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
That was polite to anybody who has an intact sense of humor. Of course I fully expect that you will willfully construe any attempt at humor as an attack and incivility. It's your job. -- BenBurch 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Context is important, wouldn't you agree? At the time of that post, the author had already received a final warning for Wikistalking. His Wikistalking had already been the subject of WP:ANI, an admin named JzG had admonished him to leave me alone for two weeks, and ArbCom proceedings had been initiated against him for Wikistalking me. Are you denying that context is important in assessing whether it's humor or mockery? Dino 14:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
An outrage! Pure unbridled barbarity from a barbaric and barbarous barbarian! Ban him! Now! No more delays! - FAAFA
Dino, you live in a glass house. Put down the stone. Guy ( Help!) 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
All three involved parties (four if you include Bryan) seem to have violated this, so it's fair to include it. Guy ( Help!) 22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Now I'm confused again, Dinos comment "an admin named JzG had admonished him to leave me alone for two weeks" seems to be addressed to user GUY, I though user GUY and user JzG were the same user. Anyway, as my dad used to say, "You Three need your heads banged together" Frankly the three of you, four if you count GUY/JzG are behaving like school children. I wanna slap you all upside your head (I think thats the correct American phrase). I'm only a third way through this arbitration page and I already think your all crazy. Grrrrrr!!! Mobile 01 Talk 13:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Wikistalking

1) The term "Wikistalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. Penalties for Wikistalking can be severe, up to and including a permanent ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Derived from WP:STALK. Dino 21:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Non-sequitur. No evidence has been presented of vexatious editing as described above. Guy ( Help!) 21:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Come on GUY, how naive do you think we are. One only has to look at Dinos contribs and then check the dates of the edits made to the same article by Ben and FAAFA to see exactly what he is saying. Did you steal the blinkers off that dead horse you were talking about earlier? Mobile 01 Talk 14:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Gang tactics

1) The term "gang tactics" has been coined to describe a situation where two or more contributors collaborate to harass other contributors, who are outnumbered by the harassers. The fact that the victims are outnumbered increases the effect of harassment and intimidation exponentially. Penalties for using gang tactics are therefore increased exponentially.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 21:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
This term has been "coined" by Dino, Bryan, and the contents of Bryan's hosiery drawer. The fact that they have not succeeded in recruiting allies is not through any lack of effort on their part. I believe this is without merit. Guy ( Help!) 22:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If you were on the receiving end of relentless, two-against-one harassment, baiting, mockery and edit warring day after day and week after week, without any admin powers and with admins doing little or nothing to intervene except issuing warnings that are ignored like the tall stacks of previous warnings they received, I think you'd be coining a phrase or two of your own, sir. Like this one. Dino 01:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The most recent stray sock in the drawer? -- BenBurch 19:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
No, it's the most recent attempt to frame me using an open proxy, exactly like all the other attempts to frame me using open proxies (and post the home address and telephone number of BFP, again using an open proxy). Dino 12:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Evidence it's an open proxy? Also, the only people I've seen use the words "street gang" are you and Bryan's socks. Given your obvious fondness for The Sopranos, not evidently shared by others, it's more likely that this is more of the usual crap. Guy ( Help!) 16:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
User:Fensteren was fond of that term too. What a coincidence! Street Gang - FAAFA 09:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This might be ok with some refinement. Some improper conduct (incivility and harassment come to mind) are worse when multiple people engage in them. Other conduct (such as reverting edits) isn't necessarily worse. If four people are reverting your edits, that may be "consensus" rather than "edit warring." TheronJ 21:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
TheronJ, thanks for your constructive input. The posted definition at the top of this section only encompasses harassment by two or more users, not edit warring. In the post before yours, I was citing edit warring in addition to "harassment, baiting [and] mockery." A pattern of misconduct well within the definition; even though the edit warring factor doesn't fall within the definition, the rest of it does. The edit warring merely reflects the motive for the harassment, baiting and mockery. Dino 23:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Two is not "multiple" by any rational definition. Two editors is not a "gang" by any rational definition. The problem here is that the Hinnen family have failed to recruit even one other editor to their cause. Just one recruit would have evened the balance. It's not BenBurch or FAAFA's faul that the Hinnens have been unpersuasive. Guy ( Help!) 11:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
No - You're wrong. Completely wrong. Tbeatty was more than ready to join their cause, defend their actions - even sockpuppetry, and even go so far as to waste all of our time and what little good faith we may have had left with such innanities as proposing that DeanHinnen may have spoken to Chuck Norris playing Walker, Texas Ranger - not author TJ Walker. Why? Cause I'm an EVIL 'LIBTARD' who must be defeated at all costs! - FAAFA 08:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Is this humor? Certainly not humour, as I don't get it. Tbeatty has a problem with you, largely caused by your own actions in the past, but I don't see him showing much support for the sock farm, only opposition to you, personally. As a long-standing editor I think Tbeatty probably shares the community's strong dislike for abusive sock puppetery and block evasion, since they undermine our ability to keep this madhouse going. Guy ( Help!) 09:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
'Walker - Texas Ranger?' It's not humour or humor. See comments Well..... excuuuse me! in Contacts made to TJ Walker and WMF not considered. After Dino's TJ Walker claim was proved false, Dino actually admitted that he had coereced Carolyn to editing on his behalf, and Dino refused to address the TJ Walker issue, and 'Dino' claimed that he was was the brother of notorious puppeteer, Tbeatty still backed him, and excoriated me to leave him alone and let him edit in peace, etc. (diffs coming) Tbeatty was not troubled one bit by any of those actions by Dino. And if specious charges of 'Wikistalking' are going to thrown around, Tbeatty arrived at the Peter Roskam article at the same time as Ben Burch, to help (IMO) Dino fight his battles. These Wikistalking charges are absurd, and without any merit. I can point to dozens of articles where members of the old Conspiracy Noticeboard (including 3 Admins / 1 now an ex-Admin) all followed each other around, arrived en masse, and used 'Gang Tactics' (Dino™) to sway consensus, get article deleteds, etc. Once my good bud MortyD (diametrically opposed politics - but we get along well) edited the article (or talk page) of Project Megiddo within minutes of me creating it, and another warrior, Crockspot, arrived a few minutes later! Did I complain about 'Wikistalking'?? No! I actually back-handingly complimented MortyD on his 'Wikistalking' skills! Every high-profile 'political' editor starts following others around. I have no doubt that dozens of people are following CyberAnth around for instance. That's the price any 'political editor' with strongly held views pays. Dino thinks he should be able to WP:OWN (as far as Ben and I are concerned) any article he edits? Prepostrous! (are you guys actually suggesting that I drop my dramatic use of bolded text? Damn! Silly me! I was about to start adding colors! (earth tones) I tried to add blinking text once and Wiki doesn't allow it ! (some would shout 'Stalinists' over this denial of my Free Speech (blinking text) Rights ;-) - FAAFA 23:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Without merit as per Guy's comment ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I don't even know if it's a proposal or a statement. It doesnt actually ask for anything. It just states that a term has been coined. OK I agree, a term has been coined. I think the edits of both Ben and FAAFA speak for themselves. They have most certainly followed Dino to article and edited them after Dino had left the building. GUY(JzG) even states (above) that they work together, excusing their behaviour by saying it's not their fault Dino couldn't anyone to support his views. I can understand Dinos frustration here, no one likes to be the victim of the schoolyard bully, especially when he has his friends standing right there supporting that behaviour. Mobile 01 Talk 14:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

POV pushing

1) The term "POV pushing" has been coined to describe the practice of editing articles and participating on Talk pages in a manner that favors one point of view (i.e. conservative, feminist, pro-choice, socialist) over one or more opposing points of view. POV pushing is a violation of WP:NPOV. POV pushing also leads to other violations of Wikipedia policy such as WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:V and WP:RS.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 22:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
I disagree with the first sentence. POV pushing refers to acting so as to advance a certain point of view. It can occur in any namespace. The second and third sentences, however, are correct. Picaroon 01:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I have added the word "articles" to the first sentence for clarification. Sometimes a first draft can be a bit ambiguous. Thanks for your constructive input. Dino 12:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I strongly disagree with this wording. First, as Picaroon states, it applies to any namespace. Second, it violates only WP:NPOV, whether other policies are violated is dependent on the way the dispute is pursued, and it is possible to violate all of these without POV-pushing, there is no causal link. Third, editing in favour of a given viewpoint is not necessarily POV-pushing - if the aim is to insert balance or to remove imbalance then an openly acknowledged editorial bias is not problematic provided the result is neutrality in the article. POV-pushing might describe, for example, DeanHinnen's recent edits in respect of Peter Roskam, but those with the opposite viewpoint, having made their case in a civil manner, would not normally be accused of POV-pushing. I propose instead... Guy ( Help!) 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
... if the aim is to insert balance or to remove imbalance then an openly acknowledged editorial bias is not problematic provided the result is neutrality ...
That is exactly what I've been trying to do, sir. And that is exactly what I've done with the Peter Roskam article. I've organized a new consensus and that article is substantially improved. I'd like to be allowed to proceed with other articles on political topics that show a distinct left-wing bias, without being stalked and reverted every millimeter of the way. Dino 12:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
So you say. But your edit war on Peter Roskam involves other users not involved in this dispute, and your assessment of what constitutes balance goes against the view of long-standing contributors who (unlike you) have no overt bias and do not appear to be friends of the subject. Guy ( Help!) 17:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It is always "the other side" that POV pushes... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
In this case, look at the January 7 version of Free Republic. It's a hatchet job. Then look at Democratic Underground. It's an advertising brochure. Here we have two large political talkboards that occasionally have death threats posted. They are similarly situated, but one's a hatchet job, and the other is an advertising brochure.
Now look at the February 5 version of Peter Roskam. It's a hatchet job. Then look at Melissa Bean. It's an advertising brochure. Again, here we have two similarly situated subjects of encyclopedia articles. They are both Congressmen from the Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, very early in their careers, with no criminal record and no investigations by the Ethics Committee. But one's a hatchet job, and the other is an advertising brochure. While you're at it, compare it with Frank Ballance, another Congressman very early in his career, who was sentenced to four years in a federal prison for illegally diverting federal funds to his own pockets. The article is actually far shorter than the February 5 version of Peter Roskam and contains far less criticism.
I will say again, sir, that I realize conservative politicians and organizations have warts and blemishes; that I certainly do not want a whitewash job; that all I want are balanced NPOV articles about them; but there has been an effort, before I ever got here, to put those warts and blemishes under a microscope and make their Wikipedia articles all about the warts and blemishes. Dino 17:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Hatchet job, n: article on a subject I like which does nor say what I want it to. Advertising brochure, n: article on a subject I don't like which does not say what I want it to. {{ sofixit}} would apply if it were not for the fact that I have yet to see a mainspace edit from you that was not obviously and substantially biased. Guy ( Help!) 17:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Sir, I will be more than happy to leave it to the Arbitrators to decide whether the January 7 version of Free Republic is a hatchet job compared to Democratic Underground, and whether the February 5 version of Peter Roskam is a hatchet job compared to Melissa Bean. They are free to employ their own definitions of the terms "hatchet job" and "advertising brochure." Just print out these versions of the articles on a laser printer, lay them on a table side by side, and compare. I am 100% confident about the result, sir. Dino 19:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't see what this topic has to do with the arbitration of Free Republic. The article by it's very subject material will always be a topic for POV pushing. Getting the right balance between the apposing view points will lead to the article in general being NPOV. This was recently explained to me by a mediator. Mobile 01 Talk 14:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

POV pushing

1a) The term POV-pushing has been coined to describe the aggressive promotion of a certain point of view in a manner which seeks to give that point of view undue weight particularly in article space. POV-pushing can take place in any name space if it still seeks to promote the view in article space - an example might be templates which serve to overemphasise minority viewpoints, such as conspiracy theories.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed as an alternative to DeanHinnen's version above. Guy ( Help!) 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Some combination of the two versions might work out. Perhaps your version, with citation of policy violations as described in my version, plus the examples from my version (conservative, feminist, anti-abortion, socialist). Maybe the word "militant" should be worked in there somewhere. I'll rewrite my version later today by incorporating elements of yours. Thanks for your constructive input. Dino 12:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Fallacy of the false middle. The above is my understanding as a long-standing admin, your version was written by you, a new user, to underpin a dispute in which you are involved. The above is close enough, and if any other established editors want to refine it they are welcome. A "compromise" between mostly wrong and mostly right is unlikely to be completely right. Guy ( Help!) 12:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Conflicts of interest

1) Editors with a conflict of interest are required to be circumspect in respect of those articles where their conflict of interest applies.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I would go so far as to suggest that editors with an obvious COI should be prohibited from editing articles that are the subject of their COI, although they should be allowed to participate on Talk pages and in forming a consensus if their COI is clearly explained. Decisions by others to participate with such editors in forming consensus should be fully informed decisions. Participation on Talk pages by editors with COIs can provide valuable perspectives in the development of articles, point the way to research resources and be helpful in other ways. Dino 22:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
On the Peter Roskam talk page : "I have said many times that I will continue to help with this campaign for Pete, and I intend to go full blast on the last 72-hour push." Dino 13:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC) [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1726044/posts link] and diff - FAAFA 02:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
FAAFA persists in deliberately distorting that post. I have never given any indication that I was that person posting on the Free Republic thread, or anyone else on the FR threads I've linked. I simply posted it as an example of an FR member, or "Freeper," participating in the Roskam campaign. I've already explained that to FAAFA. Now he's misrepresenting it to the Arbitration Committee as well. Dino 11:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed, per WP:COI. Guy ( Help!) 22:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

No original research

1) The dispute started when Dean Hinnen, claiming to be acting as legal counsel a legal representative of Free Republic, stated that he had contacted TJ Walker and received the assurance that Walker had not written a piece attributed to him, and previously published under Walker's name at Walker's website, duly attributed as such. Hinnen further claimed that this was libellous. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia's policy on original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I have never claimed to be legal counsel for Free Republic. I have claimed to be part of their legal team. This distinction is an important one. Furthermore, I made that contact prior to opening an account at Wikipedia and I was not subject to Wikipedia rules and policies at the time. Dino 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Semantic hair-splitting. The factthat you claim to be part of their legal team is not disputed, and the meat of the finding is that the claim was unverifiable original research, which it clearly is. Guy ( Help!) 13:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It is not "semantic hair-splitting," sir. It is an important distinction. When you say in your Finding of Fact that I have claimed "to be acting as legal counsel for Free Republic," when I never made such a claim and I've repeatedly pointed out that I am just a volunteer for the legal team, you've made a false Statement of Fact in ArbCom proceedings. Refactor it. Stop making excuses and misdirecting. Act like an administrator for a change, rather than a petulant child who has been erroneously given the powers of an administrator. Dino 14:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This is not a court of law. You claim to be part of their legal team. That, as far as we are concerned, means you are representing them in a legal capacity. The precise nature of this representation is not particularly relevant to the fact that your contact with TJ Walker is unverifiable original research. "That man in the brown jacket mugged the woman" "It's beige, therefore you must acquit". See? Guy ( Help!) 12:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
DeanHinnen actually wrote:"Furthermore, I made that contact prior to opening an account at Wikipedia and I was not subject to Wikipedia rules and policies at the time." Comment ? Wow... just wow - FAAFA 08:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support -- BenBurch 18:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed Guy ( Help!) 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Hair spltting definitions aside, WP:NOR is policy. The intent of the claims was clearly to create an impression of legal weight to bolster original research. That is unacceptable. Durova Charge! 07:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I may be missing something here, but my understanding of the policy on Original Research is that it relates to information placed within articles. Did Dino make this assertion within the article or only as a comment on the discussion page. If it was only on the discussion page, I fail to see how this policy applies. Mobile 01 Talk 14:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Unblock-en-l decisions provide finality

1) The consensus decisions of the informal committee, Unblock-en-l, provide a reasonable degree of finality concerning issues such as whether a particular contributor is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Any contributor benefiting from such a decision may rely on it. Other contributors must respect it, and admins will enforce it. In the absence of any strong new evidence contradicting such a decision, any suggestion by a contributor or administrator that the decision was improper will be treated as a violation of WP:NPA and will be subject to blocking and/or suspension or termination of admin powers.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. If this had been in effect when I returned from Unblock-en-l, a lot of this acrimony could have been avoided. Instead, opposing parties and even a couple of admins have been free to openly challenge the Unblock-en-l ruling, in the absence of sufficient evidence to reasonably justify such a challenge. Dino 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This is just not true. Unblock-en-l is a mailing list, and the people there are just regular users. They do not possess the ability to make any decisions there that have more authority then if they make them on wiki. Prodego talk 23:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
In this particular case, Prodego, the decision overturning your lightning reflexes was made unanimously by three admins. No "regular users" were involved except me. Nevertheless, even if the decision involves some "regular users," it should have a reasonable degree of finality. Otherwise, anyone can challenge it for any reason, or for no reason at all. This leads to endless warfare, as you can see. Without a very good reason (well founded in new evidence) that such a decision was wrong, it must be respected. Dino 23:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I do not mean in this particular case. I mean that, in general, decisions made on Unblock-en-l have no more authority then one made on wiki. I have already apologized for any mistake I made in blocking you, and when I did not feel comfortable unblocking you, I directed you to unblock-en-l. Prodego talk 23:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Prodego, I have already accepted your apology and I don't harbor any bad feelings about that. I didn't mean to convey the impression that I do. But the Unblock-en-l procedure can be very slow, laborious and frustrating. Once it has been successfully concluded, it should be worth something more than "Okay, run along and happy editing. But you're on your own." Otherwise, why bother? Dino 23:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I see your frustration, but as one of the first people to join Unblock-en-l, and one of the list moderators there (and active in moderating, in fact, I approved your message :-)) I can tell you, as Yamla and Lar did, that it represents only the view of those who talk to you, a narrow few. It does not represent an overall consensus, but it serves to review blocks and unblock users affected by collateral damage. It is usually a quick procedure, with just 2 or 3 e-mails, but your's was a more complex case. In your case it worked well, but it is certainly not binding. Prodego talk 01:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
I wasn't going to say anything more in this case than I already had when it was proposed, but I really don't think this principle has any merit at all. The unblock list is a tool for users to appeal blocks, and for interested admins to make decisions about the merits of those blocks. If admins make a decision to unblock as a result of postings to this list, they are just as likely to be overturned as if the decision had been made after comments on AN/I and certainly, have not made any sort of final statement on the matter. It is my view that Dean has advanced this theory before, using his unblock as some sort of claim to carte blanche approval of his activities, and this line of theorising needs to be squelched. ++ Lar: t/ c 03:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Then the alternative is constant warfare. When BB & FAAFA saw doubts expressed about Unblock-en-l results (by admins, for God's sake), it emboldened them to renew their false accusations, and what their "attorney" JzG wouldn't hesitate to describe as "vexatious process" if I had done it. A lot of people consider being called a "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet" an insult. You saw the results of the refusal to accept Unblock-en-l's ruling as binding. Can you propose an alternate resolution? Dino 15:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
A few points.
  • First, the unblock-en-l driven decision by one admin to unblock you (in my view that decision was not a ruling, it was a decision to unblock by one admin, based on input from a few admins... unblock-en-l is not a court that issues rulings, it's a tool to allow editors who have been blocked to appeal that block and for admins to, of their own volition, decide to unblock), does not establish precedent, does not establish bonafides and it is not some sort of binding finding Please be minding that, instead of winding us all up about it.
  • Second, ... an "alternate resolution"??? Well, after a certain point in disputes, when both sides are conflicting to the point that it's interfering with our work here, we really don't care who's actually right or who's wrong. We will tend to block both sides for acting like prats, and let calmer heads do the corrective work (if any) that is needed on the articles. That's the remedy I think arbcom ought to carry out... block the lot of you and be done, because the lot of you are wasting a lot of precious volunteer time and effort that could be used much more productively. As Charles M. said... we are not here to be another place to carry out longrunning battles started elsewhere. If you will allow me my own POV for a minute (which POV is already abundantly clear on my user page), I say a pox on both your houses, DU and FR, you're both amazingly clueless in your beliefs, and both amazingly wrong about what actually needs fixing in the US, and your childish warfare, whereever I see it, but especially here, is very tiresome and beside the point. We are here to build an encyclopedia, nothing more. We are not another battleground for you. Take your advocacy (and especially your rules lawyering and stridency) elsewhere. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC) PS, other readers, sorry for taking on the bad habit of overbolding and overitalicising, and most especially: sorry for letting my POV out for a stroll for a minute. :) But it beats swearing. ++Lar reply
Speaking as a list administrator for unblock-en-l, you don't seem to have an understanding of the function of that list. It is not an administrative body empowered to issue rulings or findings, it merely acts as a conduit for blocked users to request assistance and serves the same function as a Wikipedia noticeboard. Any administrator who performs an action based upon an unblock-en-l request is merely acting within the normal scope of their duties as an administrator and such actions do not have any more special significance than any other administrative action.
Deciding who is or is not a sockpuppet should be outside the scope of unblock-en-l in any case, and really is an issue for Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. Gamaliel 20:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
In this case, RFCU produced a false positive. It does not take into account the possibility of two users editing from the same IP address, such as family members (in this case), or co-workers, or students at the same school. In cases like those, Unblock-en-l is better than RFCU any day of the week. Dino 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
RFCU was right in all positive findings INCLUDING "you". As you have admitted here, all of these socks, yourself included, were created at Bryan's behest to, in his words "Pursue the Cabal". This is the very definition of the Wikipedia term of art "Meatpuppet". You are a meat puppet of BryanFromPalatine, and consequently have no right to be here whatsoever. -- BenBurch 22:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
... were created at Bryan's behest ...
Please post your proof of this. Can you prove that Bryan instructed his brother-in-law, his father-in-law and I to create accounts and "Pursue the Cabal"? Would that be in the form of a copy of his written instruction or a taped conversation of some sort? Dino 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Per previous ArbCom rulings, we are allowed to apply the duck test. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then for our purposes it may be treated as a duck. we do not draw any distinction between a banned editor posting, and a banned editor dictating posts to his family members. When these posts are found by CheckUser to come from the same computer, we generally wash our hands of the user. Guy ( Help!) 13:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Guy, first let me say that I apologize for having beaten the dead horse for so long. I know that this has all taken far too much of many people's time, including yours. My incivility and the number of formal complaints I have filed in this matter have largely stemmed from my conviction that circumstances are just as you now understand them to be; an army of puppets. All I wanted (and posted on his user page at the end of several of his blocks) was for Bryan/Dean/DP1978/et. al. to stop using puppets and to engage constructively and collaboratively as an editor of the Free Republic article. I believed then and I still believe that I can be a fair editor of that article and can work with my Conservative counterparts to make that a Good Article. In fact there are several editors I have worked well with there. But when I know I am dealing with a rule-breaker, I have a very hard time assuming good faith or being civil. Especially when that rule-breaker is combative and incivil and has a smug demeanor. This is finally why I have recused myself from Free Republic - I could not continue to be an effective editor there and remain even marginally civil to the Hinnen Family sock drawer. -- BenBurch 14:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
As Lar says, this is simply false. Regardless of the ins and outs of this case, unblock-l discussions do not provide finality. Finality is only available from Foundation, I'd say, since all other decisions can be appealed. Guy ( Help!) 22:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Do you understand the difference between "finality" and "a reasonable degree of finality"? Dino 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes. Do you understand the difference between a couple of list participants agreeing to assume good faith in the face of strong evidence to the contrary, and a community consensus? The claim you make in this section is false. Unblock-l provides no degree of finality whatsoever, unblock-l is simply a means for blocked editors to request unblocking, it has very few active participants (nothing like the number that come to the admin noticeboards) and - the killer punch here - even the people who were active in that discussion have repeatedly stated that it is not to be interpreted as any kind of community consensus. Which makes it look not just false, but wilfully false. I suggest you withdraw this section. Guy ( Help!) 13:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
In case it is not already abundantly clear from my remarks so far, I suggest you withdraw this section as well, as it is entirely without merit. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Without merit as per Lar and Guy's comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I don't know about "without merit", but it's certainly wrong. Arbcom, OFFICE, and Jimbo have always clearly "outranked" unblock-en-l determinations... Georgewilliamherbert 02:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If they had gone to ArbCom with their suspicions, or WP:OFFICE, or Jimmy Wales, that would have been acceptable. Instead, they pretended that Unblock-en-l never happened. They continued making their false accusations. Nobody should have to put up with that, gentlemen. There's a basic principle of human relations that was violated there; the violation colored everything that took place afterward; and if there isn't a policy or guideline or previous ArbCom ruling that covers it, then there should be. Dino 22:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. As one of the more active volunteers on unblock-en-l, I want to be absolutely clear that I do not believe this is a good idea. Those of us on unblock-en-l are just as likely as any other admin to make a mistake (positively or negatively). Most of us, including specifically myself, do not have checkuser access and as such, can only make good-faith attempts to resolve issues. Unblock-en-l is best suited for simple cases. A decision of a volunteer on unblock-en-l should be respected as (almost certainly) made in good faith, but we may not have all the information available to us at the time, we normally don't have access to checkuser information, and we can, have, and will continue to make mistakes. In my opinion, nobody on unblock-en-l expects decisions made there to have any more weight than decisions made off unblock-en-l. In summary, I would expect decisions made on unblock-en-l to be treated as made in good faith but with no more standing than decisions made off unblock-en-l. More specifically, ArbCom, WP:Office, or Jimmy Wales decisions would (as far as I can see) always trump those made on unblock-en-l. -- Yamla 04:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Banned users

1) Editing on behalf of banned users, or acting as proxy for them, is not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I suggest that acting as a proxy for a blocked user in dispute resolution should be allowed. Dino 23:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Why? Banned users are banned for a reason. Every single banned user has had chances to stop their misbehavior prior to being banned, and Bryan, like every other banned user, let these chances fly by. Picaroon 01:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy ( Help!) 23:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Hinnen wrote: I think my brother Bryan would like to have a piece of that action - FAAFA 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I believe that comment was in response to a proposed off-wiki debate between BenBurch and VoiceOfReason. Not sure how it relates to being a proxy. -- Tbeatty 04:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
OFF Wiki??? Why not have the debate on his (Bryan's) Talk page? Yeah - sure. - FAAFA 05:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, response to off-wiki debate. -- Tbeatty 05:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Yeah, right. Perhaps you need to look up the word 'proxy'? "I think my brother Bryan would like to have a piece of that action. Why not have the debate on his Talk page? Bring your little friend." Dino 16:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC) - FAAFA 07:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Actually it was DeanHinnen's posting of a "certification" by proxy on the RfC against BenBurch that i was referring to. This is completely unequivocal: Dean posting on behalf of banned Bryan. Guy ( Help!) 09:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. You'd think this would be obvious. Picaroon 01:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Durova Charge! 07:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I feel that acting as a proxy should be allowed as long as this is clearly stated as the reason. Especialy in resolution cases. That being said, if the blocked user has gone away, I cant see the point. Mobile 01 Talk 00:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material

1) Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Text from WP:BLP; might warrant trimming down a bit. Kirill Lokshin 06:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Excellent. And may I add that when BFP was blocked for 24 hours in December, it was for a 3RR violation when he was trying to remove derogatory material. It is alleged that in response to that improper 3RR block, he created his first sockpuppets. Dino 11:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
So, you stipulate that these were indeed socks? -- BenBurch 00:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
What part of "It is alleged" do you not understand, Ben? Dino 20:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The devil is in the detail. Bryan was removing sourced criticism which was the subject of ongoing debate on Talk, that is considered vandalism. The solution to this is not to revert war, it's to call the cavalry. Guy ( Help!) 12:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You have consistently described "calling the cavalry" as "vexatious process" when one side does it, but not the other (even when the other side does it far more frequently). Would you care to explain that, sir? Dino 19:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
There is a difference between a civil request for assistance in removing defamatory material, and an overt attempt to get editors blocked when you are in a ocntent dispute. Seems to me that those independent parties that reviewed these edits were not persuaded of Bryan's case. Nor does the enjoinder to remove poorly sourced negative material act as a blanket permission to expunge all criticism from articles on clearly controversial subjects. Guy ( Help!) 11:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
"All criticism" was never "expunged" in any of the articles we've discussed here, sir, with the possible exception of Nancy Pelosi. In the cases of conservative organizations and politicians such as Free Republic and Peter Roskam, efforts were made to bring the amount of criticism in line with articles about similarly-situated liberal organizations and politicians, such as Democratic Underground and Melissa Bean. BenBurch and FAAFA have fought tooth and nail against such efforts every millimeter of the way. Dino 19:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You are cavilling again. BLP does not act as a blanket permission to remove all negative material, that is a matter settled many times in the past. One side of this dispute wanted all - or at least most - negative material expunged, however well sourced. No mater that it was not done, it was the apparent aim. That party was unable to pursue their case in a way consistent with Wikipedia policies, leading to a series of blocks, which were evaded using sockpuppets, as a result of which they were banned. FAAFA and to a much lesser extent BenBurch also pursued their agenda, but generally in line with at least the letter of policy, so they were not banned. We absolutely do not work by comparing the size of criticism sections between competing entites' articles - if there is more verifiable criticism about one than about another, then there is more in the article. Comparing word count is an invalid argument. You think the project has an overall liberal bias? Maybe it does, or maybe that the centre of gravity of the project is in line with the centre of gravity overall, which is more liberal than your own personal POV. Especially after the recent elections... Guy ( Help!) 00:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Are you really saying that the amount of criticism in articles about living persons should be determined by the results of the last election, sir? Dino 22:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
With the caveat that Dino's claim that personal communications trump verifiable external sources is clearly outwith this provision. Guy ( Help!) 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Reliable sources about living people

1) Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, zines or websites/ blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Also from WP:BLP. Kirill Lokshin 06:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Outstanding. Thank you. Right on the mark. Dino 11:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
This goes a lot further than current WP:RS guidelines. Material which is directly attributable to known authorities is not especially problematic even if it is published on a blog, we just shouldn't use blogs as the major sources for an article. For minor facts and statements there's no real problem, and if we want to say "X described this site as such-and0such" and we cite it to X's blog then that may well acceptable, if X is a reliable source. It's an editorial judgement which needs to be assessed by editors without a vested interest in the content. Guy ( Help!) 11:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

WP:BLP is extended to include ongoing enterprises

1) The official Wikipedia policy WP:BLP is hereby extended to include articles about ongoing enterprises, including corporations, associations, online discussion groups, religious groups, non-profit organizations and advocacy groups.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. An ongoing enterprise is just as likely to be libeled by a POV warrior as a living person, as we have seen in this case; and an ongoing enterprise may accuse Wikipedia of libel, as Siegenthaler did. Such events would damage and disrupt the Wikipedia project, and damage the reputation of Wikipedia. This cannot be tolerated. Dino 16:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You might want to read Wikipedia:How to create policy. Prodego talk 16:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
No. This is not the case now, and to extend it through ArbCom decision, especially in the case of a claim based on unverifiable original research, is highly problematic. Guy ( Help!) 22:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
No, as per JzG. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

'Articles about ongoing enterprises' is official policy

1) The essay, Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises is hereby adopted as official Wikipedia policy governing articles about corporations, associations, online discussion groups, religious groups, non-profit organizations and advocacy groups. The policy shall be referred to by the acronym "WP:AAOE" in the future.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed as an alternative to the previous proposal. The essay mirrors WP:BLP in many respects and is a word-for-word copy in some paragraphs. Dino 16:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You might want to read Wikipedia:How to create policy. Prodego talk 16:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I've taken your advice, Prodego, and started a discussion here, as well as the other places called for by Wikipedia:How to create policy. But in those other places I've redirected the discussion here, and the consensus appears to be, "Let's wait and see how the ArbCom turns out." So it's clear that the community is looking to the Arbitrators for some guidance on this issue. The Arbitrators are encouraged to take note of the discussion here, before making any substantive ruling on this issue. Dino 18:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
That is an inactive proposal, not even a current guideline, and if ArbCom elevated it to policy in this way there would be riots. Guy ( Help!) 22:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

BLP should not be used to advance a POV

1) BLP based edits are powerful components of WP that can and have been misused to delete RS V sourced criticism from articles and talk pages in a partisan manner to advance a POV. BLP must not be used to advance any POV, or in a partisan manner. FAAFA 11:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Cautiously support. Guy ( Help!) 11:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Who's who

1) It is not necessary to prove conclusively that multiple accounts are operated by the same person in order to take action against them. Accounts that pursue the same goals in the same disruptive manner may be treated as a single account for arbitration purposes.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Accepted, although I may rephrase it. Fred Bauder 19:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Does "disruptive" mean "reverting the partisan left-wing POV pusher"? Or does it mean "filing for dispute resolution in good faith"? Perhaps it means "starting one meatpuppet investigation when a pair of editors are acting like meatpuppets"? Or "suggesting that derogatory material with abysmally bad sourcing should be removed from the article"?
And are you going to treat BenBurch and FAAFA as a single account? Dino 01:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
They have distinctly different editing patterns, so no. Fred Bauder 19:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse --- BenBurch 20:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Essentially, this ignores the possibility that two or more schoolmates, or co-workers, or family members could be editing from the same IP address. It is a violation of WP:SOCK to make that assumption. See my comments above about "Ricky and Ronnie." Dino 18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Common principle in many cases. Thatcher131 14:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Similar to my comment in "Comments by others:" at #DeanHinnen aides and abets BryanFromPalatine's ban evasion. Picaroon 20:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse of course, per the duck test. And Dino - no. BenBurch and FAAFA have widely differing edit histories, the only problem here is that both of them (along with other editors in good standing) find your edits problematic. Guy ( Help!) 11:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Whatever else comes to pass, I have to agree that this is good and relevant policy, and that it doesn't look to me like Ben and FAAFA qualify as socks under it. They clearly aren't connected single or limited purpose accounts. Georgewilliamherbert 23:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Reminiscent of the findings in the Midnight Syndicate case. Remedies may be fashioned in a manner that obviates specific identification of particular users. Durova Charge! 07:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Sockpuppets

1) For the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits, they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Daniel.Bryant 08:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
True, but redundant to the above #Who's who section. Picaroon 20:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Monitoring an editor is legitimate

1) Where an editor has a history of biased contributions, it is legitimate to monitor that editor's edits. It is not permissible to threaten or harass them, but it is permissible to engage in civil debate regarding content which is seen as biased, or to bring such bias to the notice of other editors of an article.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Let's not pretend that the Wikistalking by BenBurch and FAAFA is anything other than what it is: a constant violation of WP:STALK, badly camouflaged as concern that I might be making inappropriate edits. Each and every one of these articles where I edited first, and then they reverted me, is a very ordinary content dispute. The trouble is that they are extending the original content dispute from Free Republic.
Their behavior destroys one of the most effective methods of dispute resolution available at Wikipedia: the ability to just walk away. I am not being allowed to walk away. I am being forced to keep fighting these two wherever I go. Permitting this to continue will send a signal to every other Wikipedia editor who is thinking about using this simple, effective method of dispute resolution. If it is no longer effective, and if WP:STALK will not be enforced when the Wikistalkers employ such flimsy pretexts, you're going to see a lot more content disputes getting escalated. People will think that they can't just walk away. They will dig in their heels and start doing things that attract the attention of administrators.
On each article ( Peter Roskam, Nancy Pelosi and Bill Nelson), there were already other editors present who could monitor my edits and make their own judgments about them. They didn't need any help at all. But BenBurch and FAAFA insisted on "helping" them. I have no problem with being monitored. I have a very serious problem with being monitored by BenBurch and FAAFA. Based on our history at Free Republic, particularly on January 31, no one should think for a moment that I'm being unreasonable about that.
In particular, JzG admonished both of them to leave me the hell alone for two weeks on February 3. All three articles ( Peter Roskam, Nancy Pelosi and Bill Nelson) had their first edits by these two within the following two weeks, and those edits included reversions of my edits. Even though JzG refuses to enforce that two-week warning, the Arbitration Committee should understand that it defines this editing as Wikistalking, rather than legitimate monitoring.
Don't let these people keep making flimsy excuses. Enforce WP:STALK. Dino 01:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. If it was absolutely forbidden to trawl or watch an editors contribs, many admins would have to be banned immediately. What's not allowed is to harrass. So: "Sorry, I do not believe this is significant" would be OK, but "revert yet more freeper bullshit" would not. Note that I didn't find either of those summaries in the histories, although there is no shortage of insulting or aggressive edit summaries if you care to look at the parties' contribs. Guy ( Help!) 17:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Disagree, simply because its entirely subjective, as an admin I am sure you have heard complaints of POV pushing, if you state that automatically allows monitoring of a user, you are creating a massive slope/cliff. I believe the times in which you can monitor a watchlist is already noted, its in the case of vandalism. Stating admins go beyond the outline of when its permitted, doesnt make it look much better. -- Nuclear Zer0 17:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The thing is, Dean proposes that watching his contributions is harrassment. But his edits, for the most part, are tendentious. There is nothign wrong with watching the edits of a tendentious editor. The problem comes when you become aggressive about it. BenBurch is, to my mind, not an offender in this regard, the instances of so-called harassment by BenBurch forwarded to me by Dean are pretty lame - polite and unproblematic, I'd say. FAAFA is less reasonable in this respect. He may well be guilty of harassment. But I'd not say that BenBurch is, based on the evidence I've seen, he's just checking the edits of an editor known to be biased, and is supported in his edits by others in good standing (e.g. Calton). It would be wrong to call these edits harassment or stalking, because they do not to me seem to serve primarily or even as a side-effect to cause disruption. Guy ( Help!) 00:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
As a policy, and practical consideration, I have to agree that this is both happening in practice and a good idea. That said, there are both potential and practical anti-stalking issues brought forwards. They should be separate from the general question of whether it's ok to ever monitor a percieved problem user. Georgewilliamherbert 23:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Sure. The point here is that the judgement of what constitutes stalking is situational. FAAFA has engaged, in my view, in stalking, or at leats low-grade harassment, but not of Dino - watching the contribs of an overtly biased editor is legitimate if done in a civil manner and really FAAFA was simply baiting Dino to get a rise (bad, but not terribly bad). I don't see any credible evidence that BenBurch has stalked, because where he did challenge Dino's edits it was done in a civil manner, was in line with the opinion of other editors, and was taken to the article Talk page - I really struggle to see anything wrong with this. Guy ( Help!) 00:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
... FAAFA was simply baiting Dino to get a rise ...
And you did nothing about it. Here's what was wrong with what BenBurch did, sir. Regardless of your perceptions, BenBurch admits that his entire purpose was to bait me "to get a rise": "I can think of no other way to force him to get the attention of enough admins to finally get one of them to deal with him." [31] I had engaged in a bitter content dispute with them, I walked away, and you told both of them to leave me the hell alone for two weeks. Instead, they stalked me to not one, not two, but three other articles where other editors and even some admins (and at least one Arbitrator) were already present to sort things out, and baited me everywhere I went. This was a violation of WP:STALK by both of them. It's really that simple. Dino 02:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia values fun, humor and sarcasm

1) (text = work in progress) Wikipedia recognizes that humor, fun, riposte and sarcasm are integral parts of human interaction, and are valued (within limits) on Wikipedia as well.

Wikipedia:Enjoy_yourself

Wikipedia:Rouge_admin

FAAFA 03:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
How is this relevant, please?
unsigned by (?)
There's a difference between using humor to defuse stressful situations and this situation. This situation isn't funny anymore. Georgewilliamherbert 23:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It never was funny, sir. Dino 17:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oh don't be so modest - you have provided several belly laughs, albeit unintentionally. Guy ( Help!) 23:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Allegations of off-Wiki harassment are alarming

1) Allegations of off-Wiki harassment and stalking are very alarming. Disclosures of personal information, particularly by an administrator in circumstances that can appear retaliatory, can enable this harassment and are also disturbing. Any involvement, enablement or encouragement of off-Wiki harassment will be subject to sanctions from the Arbitration Committee and all admins, up to and including a permanent ban. The matter may also be referred to the Wikimedia Foundation and law enforcement authorities for further action.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 17:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
My revealing of your brother's e-mail is something I regret doing. However, it wasn't retaliatory, I was making my sockpuppet case. Fred Bauder and Essjay both have more info about this, which the other arbitrators should probably hear. In addition there was AN or ANI discussion on it, although I can not provide a link. Prodego talk 17:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It may not have been retaliatory, and despite the absolute refusal of others to give members of my family the benefit of the doubt, I'm giving it to you. But it was in circumstances that appeared retaliatory and the consequences were disastrous, to him and to his family. Another admin has repeated this disclosure, also in circumstances that appeared retaliatory, without showing the slightest sign of remorse.
Then he protected the page so that I couldn't revert the disclosure.
Then, when I took it to ANI, I didn't have a lot of time to fool around (due to off-Wiki constraints in my professional life); the admin whose comment I was redacting couldn't be contacted by e-mail, and I made a sloppy edit. The same admin who repeated your disclosure used this as an excuse to instigate a 24-hour block, and also instigated a later 48-hour block for canvassing (in circumstances that another admin and I would describe as "friendly noticing").
I hope you understand why I have my doubts about this particular admin's objectivity in this entire matter, Prodego. Dino 17:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Fallacious. If you were concerned about your brother's privacy who you 'claim' was harassed in real life, for years, and even forced into penury by evil libs, you would have never created a username including your last name. I advised you about 'turnip trucks' Mr. Hinnen. - FaAfA 20:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The statement that people refused to give members your family the benefit of the doubt is demonstrably false. You are posting here, clear evidence that at least one member was given the benefit of the doubt, and I remember at least half a dozen threads ont he admin noticeboard before Bryan was finally banned. Guy ( Help!) 23:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You outed yourself and your "brother" too the moment you decided to use your own name as a login name and enter his fight. What on earth were you thinking? If you knew your bother was so universally hated (something I never knew, and still don't) why on earth would you choose to expose him in that fashion? In any case I had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. And if he were so concerned with being found by dangerous liberals, why did he have an unlisted phone number? It does not add up in any way.
Plus, doing some googling, the only evidence of harassment of Bryan I could find was where he was harassed by the Drug Enforcement Agency who got the wrong house when they went to bust a drug operation and lied to the judge to obtain the warrant. He then rightly won against them in a lawsuit. Not really Dangerous Liberals there.
And in any case, I had zero to do with either outing that name or posting that personal information. In fact I believe I reverted it out of his user page at least once. -- BenBurch 22:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Let's get this straight: you are allowed to state that you are Bryan's brother, that his name is Bryan, and that your name is Dean Hinnen, but anybody who says that Bryan's name is Bryan plus Hinnen is responsible for him being harassed off Wikipedia, is that what you're saying? Guy ( Help!) 23:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Yeah, let's get this straight. BFP has been stalked and harassed mercilessly because he worked for Free Republic. Not only did he work for the Free Republic legal team on the LA Times lawsuit and a lot of other cases, he was one of their most effective anti-vandalism people for five very turbulent years. The vandals loathed him.
You've seen the anti-vandalism efforts by the volunteers here, and the responses of the vandals. Perhaps you can understand, sir. Free Republic is not so different in that way, and in several other ways.
Nobody here would have known BFP's last name, or that we are related, or that he had relocated to a particular town, until Prodego announced it for the benefit of BenBurch, FAAFA, and any other left-wing partisans who happened to be looking at Talk:Free Republic that day. Then it was deleted. Then at an allegedly public list that can't be accessed by a search engine, I had to confirm the relationship and make a lot of other disclosures in order to get unblocked. Because it is a semi-private list that can't be accessed by a search engine, and because there is no space between my first and last names in my username, a search engine is still unable to find the word due to any action of mine.
But you, BenBurch and FAAFA, by continuing to run your reckless mouths, have repeatedly put both BFP's first name and BFP's last name on the same page for a search engine to find. Prodego has apologized for it. He has also apologized for blocking me. He has not repeated those mistakes.
You have made certain that those mistakes keep getting repeated. And you have never shown the slightest sign of remorse for it. Dino 02:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Some editors are more vulnerable than others

1) Some editors are more vulnerable than others to breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as the disclosure of personal information. They may feel comfortable releasing some bits of information (for example, first name and town of residence) even if disclosure of one more detail (last name) would be catastrophic. Other editors are not to make independent judgments about such differing levels of vulnerability, or which personal details are capable of disclosure.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. No one has any idea about what's going on outside of Wikipedia unless they're told. Editors and administrators should start from the assumption that any breach of policy on their part will cause a substantial amount of damage, and proceed accordingly. For example, we may have an editor who has just escaped from domestic abuse, or has been subjected to stalking in the past. Or a violation of WP:BLP might involve an article about a living person who is highly irritable and litigious, with substantial resources available to retain counsel and engage in expensive delaying tactics, while the press drags Wikipedia's reputation through the mud. There's no telling what landmines we may step on; the best policy is to avoid any possible minefields in the first place. Dino 17:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by party : FaAfA 09:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Here is what User:ArlingtonTX, one of BryanFromPalatine many highly-developed sockpuppet personas wrote. He didn't seemed nearly as concerned about discussing the 'family tree' as DeanHinnen seems to be.
  • "I'm the patriarch of a large extended family that has been editing Wikipedia from anonymous IP addresses for up to three years. We've recently reached a collective decision to start registering our accounts and participating in more discussions here at Wikipedia. We are all located in the Northwest Suburbs of Chicago. The "tribe" includes a grandfather and grandmother, seven children and their spouses and significant others, at least three of our brilliant and precocious grandchildren, and a few close friends and advisors of the family. BryanFromPalatine is part of our "tribe." So is DP1976. So is 12ptHelvetica. I'll have to call my daughter to find out for sure, but it's possible that Runesword is one of the younger members of our "tribe" who plays Dungeons and Dragons." Diff
Comment by others:
What is this crap? The only litigious party named thus far is Free Republic, and we know who does the litigating there. If you didn't want people to know Bryan's real identity you should not have identified yourself as his brother, or you should have chosen a different username. The source we have for Bryan's name is: you. You are the source. You outed your brother. It was you. Dean Hinnen - that's you - Bryan's brother - that's you - named yourself as Bryan's brother (note: yourself), while freely admitting to your full name. And this is our fault in what way, exactly? This is becoming surreal! Guy ( Help!) 23:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Once again, sir, from the beginning: nobody would have known BFP's last name, or that we are related, without the initial disclosure by Prodego on January 15. From that disclosure, others flowed. I am not responsible for Prodego's violation of Wikipedia privacy policy. I have not posted BFP's last name in a manner that can be found by a search engine. You, sir, are responsible for that. And I don't see even the slightest sign of remorse. Dino 02:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Nope, You gave it away yourself when you created this account. And you expect us to believe that you cannot see the consequences of a reckless act like that? I actually suspect that you ginned all this up to create a scene with later. Much too convenient. And I don't believe for even a moment that there has been any harassment of your "brother" as a result, either. Would you care to offer some proof? I didn't think so. -- BenBurch 03:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Stop trying to shift the blame for the misconduct of your friends. It's really getting old. Prodego admitted that his disclosure was inappropriate and he had the decency to apologize. Without that, no one would have known that I, or my username, had anything at all to do with BFP. Proving the harassment would provide additional disclosures, just as proving that I'm not BFP provided additional disclosures at Unblock-en-l. So once again, sir, I must respectfully decline to take the bait you're shoving in my face. Dino 04:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
No, the blame was all yours. It was a predictable consequence that creating a sock puppet using your middle name might reveal your Christian name. You made your bed, now lie in it. -- BenBurch 14:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I admit it that I consider it inappropriate to do so, I defer to the arbcom for policy. I recall the Squidward vandal's name being gleaned from Email. Prodego talk 20:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Civility during arbitration

1) Parties to an arbitration must refrain from personal attacks and other forms of incivility during the arbitration, just as at all other times. Hostility, malice, and incivility displayed during arbitration will be taken into account in judging the parties' continued participation in Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. I find much of the conduct on this very page to be thoroughly disgusting. -- FOo 09:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
One would hope that the context that triggered any "Hostility, malice, and incivility displayed during arbitration" will also be taken into account. I'm Sorry. But I've been stalked all over this website, my family has been stalked in real life, and it's just a little bit difficult to be Mother Theresa under the circumstances. Dino 23:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. None of the participants make themselves look good here. And if anyone is genuinely fearful they should invoke Wikipedia's right to vanish rather than engage in further conflict. Durova Charge! 06:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Conflict of interest

1) Users who are involved in an activity which is the subject of an article may be banned from the article if their editing is disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 22:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Support. Fits with precedent and certainly relevant here. Durova Charge! 07:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Neutral point of view

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that articles regarding controversial subjects shall in a conservative sober manner set forth all significant points of view regarding the subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 18:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Verifiable information from reliable sources

1) Wikipedia:Verifiability, a policy, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, a guideline, require that information included in an article on a subject shall be limited to verifiable information from reliable third party sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

No original research

1) Wikipedia:No original research, a policy, precludes use of personal experience as source for information in an article; likewise, material published on a partisan forum is not acceptable as a source.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 18:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Articles in dispute

1) In addition to Free Republic (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Peter Roskam (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Nancy Pelosi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Incomplete Fred Bauder 19:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

BenBurch recruited meatpuppets

1) Starting in October 2005, BenBurch actively recruited meatpuppets from Democratic Underground to participate at Wikipedia and introduce a left-wing bias into articles about political topics [32]. JamesMLane also participated in the DU thread that recruited left-wing meatpuppets at Democratic Underground.

Recruiting efforts by BenBurch

1) Starting in October 2005, BenBurch recruited liberal and progressive activists from Democratic Underground to participate at Wikipedia [33]. JamesMLane also participated, emphasizing the importance of conforming to Wikipedia policies. The initial request for editors appears to have resulted from editing conflicts regarding Andy Stephenson, now deleted.

Comment by Arbitrators:
I have checked this out. BenBurch did post a request for Wikipedia editors on the "Activist HQ" forum at Democratic Underground.com. This resulted in a spirited debate regarding the pros and cons of such editing. JamesMLane, particularly, emphasized the importance of acquainting yourself with Wikipedia's policies and following them. Fred Bauder 18:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I have added alternative language which I find acceptable. Fred Bauder 19:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Here's the evidence. [34] Dino 19:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Become Wikipedia Editors
Posted by benburch on Sat Oct-08-05 11:55 AM
There is a crying need for more Liberal/Progressive Wikipedia editors. Right now, groups like Free Republic can essentially have their own way with their entries in Wikipedia. They can control their message entirely in this supposedly neutral online resource because they can outnumber us when a discussion to reach consensus on a disputed entry occurs.
Please head over to http://www.wikipedia.org / and sign up.
Would anyone care to comment? Ben, would you care to report on the results of your meatpuppet recruiting, and any subsequent efforts you have made? Dino 14:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply


  • No, son, I recruited EDITORS. There was no issue at stake at that time that anybody was being asked to sway, nor did I suggest how they edit or give them any agenda. And I think two people responded and have become long term editors as a direct result; User:Jinxmchue and User:Crockspot -- BenBurch 21:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You started that Democratic Underground thread on October 8, 2005. On October 4, October 5, October 6 and October 8 of that year, you were engaged in a protracted edit war with a Freeper named Dominick. Where was this conflict? It was at Free Republic and Talk:Free Republic. Fancy that. Diffs aplenty. [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] (does anybody notice a 3RR violation in there anywhere?) [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] (this includes threats by BenBurch to sue Jim Robinson, another indication of Ben's COI problem) [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]
So let's not pretend, sir, that "there was no issue at stake at that time that anybody was being asked to sway." There was the issue of the death of Andy Stephenson, right? If there's any way to contact people at DU that isn't public, such as private messaging or e-mail, there's no way to tell whether you were trying to "suggest how they edit or give them any agenda." Dino 21:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
WOW. Just Googling the word combination "BenBurch" + "Democratic Underground" + "Wikipedia" has produced a gold mine of evidence, sir. This is fascinating. You've been very busy. Dino 21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:

BenBurch harassed BFP

1) BenBurch is guilty of harassing BFP.

Comment by Arbitrators:
I am presently unable to determine the validity of this finding due to lack of cited evidence. Fred Bauder 19:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Proposed in the event that the Committee chooses to consider evidence that relates to BFP. Dino 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
WP:KETTLE. Guy ( Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I have harassed or stalked these parties, do it. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Ah, so you are Bryan. Thanks for clearing that up. Guy ( Help!) 23:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Posting " WP:KETTLE" in a direct response to a post by Dino subsumes that I am the Pot calling the Kettles black. The fact that I'm not BFP has already been cleared up. Dino 23:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep saying that if you like, but it has not. -- BenBurch 14:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This is not useful without some evidence. Ideally, a proposed finding of fact will have a couple of diffs showing the best examples of the behavior, or a wikilink to a section on the evidence page, so that the arbitrators can evaluate the proposal. As a bare statement with no evidence, you are asking the arbitrators to find your evidence for you, which they may or may not do. Thatcher131 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If Arbitrators deny my motion to exclude evidence about BFP, I'll edit my section of the Evidence page and link it here. Until then, I'd rather wait. Dino 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

FAAFA harassed BFP

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All is guilty of harassing BFP.

Comment by Arbitrators:
I am presently unable to determine the validity of this finding due to lack of cited evidence. Fred Bauder 19:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Proposed in the event that the Committee chooses to consider evidence that relates to BFP. Dino 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
WP:KETTLE. Guy ( Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I have harassed or stalked these parties, do it. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Useless without diffs or links to evidence of some kind. See my comments above. Thatcher131 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If Arbitrators deny my motion to exclude evidence about BFP, I'll edit my section of the Evidence page and link it here. Until then, I'd rather wait. Dino 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

FAAFA and BenBurch ganged up on BFP

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All and BenBurch are guilty of using gang tactics against BFP.

Comment by Arbitrators:
I am presently unable to determine the validity of this finding due to lack of cited evidence. Fred Bauder 19:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Proposed in the event that the Committee chooses to consider evidence that relates to BFP. Dino 21:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
WP:KETTLE. Guy ( Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I have harassed or stalked these parties, do it. I fail to understand how one person could engage in gang tactics alone. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Since that's the neologism you seem intent on coining to describe the "gang of two", I don't see the relevance of your point. Bryan was a one-man gang. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JzG ( talk • contribs) 18:08, February 13, 2007 (UTC)
Useless without diffs or links to evidence of some kind. See my comments above. Thatcher131 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If Arbitrators deny my motion to exclude evidence about BFP, I'll edit my section of the Evidence page and link it here. Until then, I'd rather wait. Dino 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

BenBurch harassed Dino

1) BenBurch is guilty of harassing DeanHinnen.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
WP:KETTLE. Guy ( Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I have harassed or stalked these parties, do it. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Useless without diffs or links to evidence of some kind. See my comments above. Thatcher131 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Okay. [62] [63] [64] Dino 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Those are not diffs in respect of BenBurch, they are your statements which include lots of diffs many of which are FAAFA and none of which appear at a quick review to be harassment by BenBurch; you have previously cited supposed harassment by BenBurch which consists of repeating the reversion of your tendentious edits by Calton, an editor in good standing, and with a civil edit summary at that. Please provide diffs for actual harassment by BenBurch. Guy ( Help!) 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Of course, sir. On January 31, BenBurch claiming that I'm BFP, accused me of using the Fensteren account as a sock, and filed a sockpuppet investigation against me that even a few admins immediately identified as vexatious, then came back to the Talk:Free Republic page to taunt me about it. [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] BenBurch on the subject of BenBurch, in a rare, unguarded moment of candor: "Under control? Not likely ..." And this was just after he had returned from a 24-hour slap on the wrist for "incivility and misrepresentation."
Here's a BenBurch taunt that an admin instantly recognized as a taunt: [71] Here's the recognition: [72]
Here's an admin recognizing BenBurch's new sockpuppet case as vexatious process: [73] How much more do you need, sir? Shall I back up the truck and start dumping, or is that enough? Dino 15:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply

FAAFA harassed Dino

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All is guilty of harassing DeanHinnen.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
WP:KETTLE. Guy ( Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I have harassed or stalked these parties, do it. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Happy to. Guy ( Help!) 23:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Useless without diffs or links to evidence of some kind. See my comments above. Thatcher131 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Okay. [74] [75] [76] Dino 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply


FAAFA and BenBurch ganged up on Dino

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All and BenBurch are guilty of using gang tactics against DeanHinnen.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed. Dino 21:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
WP:KETTLE. Guy ( Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I have harassed or stalked these parties, do it. I fail to understand how one person could engage in gang tactics alone. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Useless without diffs or links to evidence of some kind. See my comments above. Thatcher131 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Okay. [77] [78] [79] Dino 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The word "gang" should be grounds for immediate striking out of any comment by Dino. It's his private Sopranos fandom thing. We don't use the word, and certainly never to describe two editors. Guy ( Help!) 00:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Then it's time to start using it, sir, when describing two against one. Not in an ordinary consensus discussion, sir, but when employed in a harassing, hectoring, bullying, ridiculing way, Wikistalking from article to article, day after day, week after week. Dino 05:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply

BenBurch Wikistalked Dino

1) BenBurch is guilty of Wikistalking DeanHinnen.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
WP:KETTLE. Guy ( Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I have harassed or stalked these parties, do it. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Useless without diffs or links to evidence of some kind. See my comments above. Thatcher131 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Okay. [80] [81] [82] Dino 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply


FAAFA Wikistalked Dino

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All is guilty of Wikistalking DeanHinnen.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
WP:KETTLE. Guy ( Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I have harassed or stalked these parties, do it. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Useless without diffs or links to evidence of some kind. See my comments above. Thatcher131 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Okay. [83] [84] [85] Dino 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply


BenBurch guilty of POV pushing

1) BenBurch is guilty of POV pushing.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 22:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
WP:KETTLE. Guy ( Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I am guilty of POV pushing, do it. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

FAAFA guilty of POV pushing

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All is guilty of POV pushing.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed. Dino 22:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
WP:KETTLE. Guy ( Help!) 22:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I am guilty of POV pushing, do it. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

External disputes brought to Wikipedia

1) The dispute represents an external dispute brought to Wikipedia. DeanHinnen in particular appears to have no purpose on Wikipedia other than to pursue this dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
This accusation fails the moment arbitrators take a look at edit histories of Peter Roskam, Bill Nelson and Nancy Pelosi. Those articles had nothing to do with this dispute until I was followed there by opposing parties. My purpose in participating at Talk:Free Republic was to convince others to remove material I found libelous, not to pursue any dispute. Once that goal was achieved, and this very same admin "strongly suggested" that I leave BB & FAAFA alone for two weeks, I left the Talk:Free Republic page and started editing other articles. And then they are the ones who pursued me, sir. Dino 23:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I see that your account was created much later than either of theirs, and among your first actions on arriving here was to register an RfC against one of the parties. So no, you came here for a fight. Guy ( Help!) 09:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Your relentless distortion of the evidence, to conceal the glaring inconsistencies and weaknesses in your case, is most unbecoming to your status as an administrator, sir. I was actively participating at Wikipedia for weeks before I filed that RfC, and had seen the subject of the RfC (BenBurch) in action: filing sockpuppet accusations left and right, and representing the results as "Confirmed" even when an RFCU wasn't even performed, or showed that the alleged sockpuppetry was merely "Possible." I only filed the RfC in response to the urging of two administrators: Prodego and Jossi. Dino 14:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed Guy ( Help!) 22:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Banned users

1) User:DeanHinnen, who is stated to be the brother of User:BryanFromPalatine and edits from the same IP address, pursued BryanFromPalatine's dispute on his behalf following Bryan's ban, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BenBurch and elsewhere, including posting on behalf of Bryan by proxy.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I have posted as BFP's proxy in dispute resolution. I pursued the removal of material libelous to Free Republic on behalf of Free Republic. All my other edits have been on my own behalf, sir. In some families, members tend to think alike. Perhaps you're not familiar with this tendency. It does not necessarily mean that one is acting as the other's agent. Dino 23:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You have posted as Bryan's proxy. This is acceptable in the case of advocates seeking ArbCom review of bans and blocks, not in the case of continuing the pursuit of a vendetta against another editor. Guy ( Help!) 23:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You claim that dispute resolution is "pursuit of a vendetta"? Dino 23:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
DeanHinnen wrote: I think my brother Bryan would like to have a piece of that action - FAAFA 01:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply


Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy ( Help!) 23:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Durova Charge! 07:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Dino guilty of harassment

1) Dino harassed BenBurch and FAAFA through the mechanism of numerous vexatious uses of process (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BenBurch, multiple postings to the administrators' noticeboards, e.g. [86], [87], and by actively soliciting administrator involvement against BenBurch and FAAFA.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
An essential element of this accusation is the word "vexatious." I did not intend for my actions to be vexatious. I intended for my actions to resolve this dispute. "Actively seeking involvement by an administrator" to enforce Wikipedia policy? What was I supposed to do when they posted personal attacks? Just take it like a man? If admins are unaware of a violation of Wikipedia policy, how are they supposed to find out about it? Dino 23:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
I can provide the contents of numerous emails from Dino soliciting my action, as an administrator, against BenBurch. The ANI threads Guy ( Help!) 23:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Disagree with vexatious - there was mutual combat between both "sides" extensively prior to these RFC and ANI incidents, exhibited in different manners by each side. Without regards to who started it or which side was right or wrong, Dean was correct that there was an incident going on and that it needed attention. Numerous admins and users attempted to calm the situation or mediate in some way - the failures thereof don't make the efforts by Dean to seek it vexatious. During periods where there was mutual disengagement, Dean didn't strongly continue such actions, indicating that they were directly provoked. Perhaps over the top, perhaps harrassment, but disagree that he was complaining just to stir up trouble. Georgewilliamherbert 00:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

User:Fairness And Accuracy For All/ User:NBGPWS is a disruptive and tendentious editor.

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)/ NBGPWS ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a disruptive and tendentious editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed Tbeatty 02:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I simply could not agree more. Bravo. Right on the mark. Dino 16:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Actually, he has been the only editor that was willing to "write for the enemy" during informal mediation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Incorrect. If necessary, I'll provide diffs. I've reviewed that portion of the mediation and the pro-FR faction completed the "Criticism and controversy" section promptly. Dino 13:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Note : That 'DeanHinnen' wasn't a participant in that mediation - his 'brother' and 4 (5?) sockpuppet account personas (all using the same IP as DeanHinnen) were. Why should 'DeanHinnen' be familiar with what happened before he joined? - FAAFA 09:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It really doesn't matter if he was there or not - even if he wasn't, it would be perfectly legitimate for him to go back through archives. There is no requirement that arbitrations only consider acts done in the immediate past and directly from involved party to involved party. Georgewilliamherbert 23:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

FAAFA engaged in edit warring

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All is guilty of edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 12:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
WP:KETTLE Make a section for everyone, it is why all are here is it not? -- Nuclear Zer0 17:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

BenBurch engaged in edit warring

1) BenBurch is guilty of edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 12:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:

FAAFA used poorly sourced derogatory material

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All used poorly sourced derogatory material in an article about an ongoing enterprise, exposing Wikipedia to the risk of civil liability.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 12:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Meritless : (as to civil liability) I pointed 'attorney' DeanHinnen to this article Is Wikipedia safe from libel liability? and another source saying the same. - FAAFA 09:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
See my comments in the next section, sir. Dino 14:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply


Comment by others:
Difs? -- Nuclear Zer0 17:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Glad you mentioned that, sir. On January 6, FAAFA doubled the length of negative commentary in the lead; added the non-encyclopedic, Todd Brendan Fahey based "rubber stamp for Bush Administration" comment to the lead, without quotation marks; added the libelous AmericanPolitics.com link to the lead; added a lengthy, libelous quotation from AmericanPolitics.com to the "Controversial aspects" section; and removed a description of the settlement (favorable to FR) in the LA Times lawsuit from the "Copyright lawsuit" section. This was the moment when the article crossed the line from a flawed but still somewhat encyclopedic article to a hatchet job.
And there it stayed, defended by BenBurch and FAAFA like the Japanese defended Iwo Jima, until the arrival of CyberAnth, PTR, Ken Arromdee and Armon. Thanks to the efforts of the latter four editors, it has been changed back into a flawed but reasonably encyclopedic article. Dino 14:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply

BenBurch used poorly sourced derogatory material

1) BenBurch used poorly sourced derogatory material in an article about an ongoing enterprise, exposing Wikipedia to the risk of civil liability.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 12:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Meritless : (as to civil liability) I pointed 'attorney' DeanHinnen to this article Is Wikipedia safe from libel liability? and another source saying the same. - FAAFA 09:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
In the very source you've just linked, sir, a University of Chicago law professor named Douglas Lichtman has commented that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act may fail to protect Wikipedia under certain circumstances against a libel lawsuit. (Perhaps you should have read the second page of your link.) If Carolyn Doran knows that an article contains libelous statements and does nothing (or perhaps "nothing effective in the long term") to remove those statements from the article, can Wikipedia be held liable?
For example, [Lichtman] said, if Wales and his Wikipedia colleagues knew clearly that they were distributing defamatory material, "that knowledge plus Wikipedia's ability to remove the defamatory material should, in my view, give rise to an obligation to act."
Absolute immunity is difficult to find in the law, sir. And you have failed to address the damage that such cases would cause to Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral encyclopedic source. Everyone involved in the leadership of Wikipedia remembers the Siegenthaler case. Nobody wants it to be repeated, even though Wikipedia did not have to pay any monetary damages. There are other costs to be paid in litigation besides damages, sir.
I've done my best to protect Wikipedia. Not only am I dealing with some very headstrong and uncooperative people here, I've dealt with similarly disposed people at Free Republic. This has been most frustrating, and I must confess that my impatience has led at times to behavior that is unacceptable to the community; but litigation has been prevented. Whatever happens to my Wikipedia membership is of little consequence in light of that result. The important thing, as far as I am concerned, is protecting the project from reckless partisans like you. Dino 14:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:

DeanHinnen aides and abets BryanFromPalatine's ban evasion

1) DeanHinnen ( talk · contribs) aides and abets community ban evasion by BryanFromPalatine ( talk · contribs). DeanHinnen's actions in consistently pushing a point of view and attacking BryanFromPalatine's nemeses Fairness And Accuracy For All ( talk · contribs) and BenBurch ( talk · contribs) cleary show that the account DeanHinnen is being used to be further the interests of a banned user.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I concur. In Wikipedia policy there is no distinction between a meat puppet and a sock puppet in a practical sense. -- BenBurch 05:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Consider all the evidence. On January 15 Carolyn Doran, Chief Operating Officer of the Wikimedia Foundation, had removed libelous material. She was banned for impersonating a Foundation employee and her removal of the libelous material was reverted. I reluctantly opened an account at her suggestion and removed the libelous material again. I was permablocked as an alleged puppet. I went to Unblock-en-l and was unblocked. I then started gently persuading anyone who would listen to remove the libelous material and was relentlessly attacked by BB & FAAFA. That made them My nemeses, completely independent from their relentless badgering and baiting of my brother. BB & FAAFA have been very cunning and skillful in provoking conflict and then making the other party appear to be the aggressor. Do not reward this behavior. Punish it. Dino 16:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Pardon me, but I had to laugh when I read this. Bryan (and you) can seemingly be provoked merely by disagreeing with you or changing any part of your contributions to main article space. If that is all it take, my friend, you don't belong here. -- BenBurch 18:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Read the evidence page. Click on the links to the diffs I provided. Read the constant tone of mockery and ridicule, sir. And if your friend Guy succeeds in dragging my brother into this, the remarks you made in the sockpuppet investigations and RFCUs are even worse. Your remarks go far, far beyond a polite disagreement over the content of an article, sir. Otherwise you and your friend FAAFA wouldn't have received those 24-hour blocks for incivility.
Also, another reason why you got a 24-hour block was "misrepresentation." This is a polite way to say "lying," sir. Your entire participation in this proceeding, as well as FAAFA's, consists of misrepresenting the evidence. The constant distortions, half-truths and spin-doctoring don't even stop here. Dino 13:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. I'm now realizing that whether DeanHinnen is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet is of no serious consequence; he is aiding in ban evasion either way. Picaroon 00:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Tbeatty has intentionally and egregiously misused BLP

1) Tbeatty has intentionally and egregiously misused BLP to a) advance his POV and a blatantly partisan agenda. Please look at: The Clinton Chronicles (diff) and Pat Robertson (diff) (compare and contrast the two edits - and note that after TBeatty violated BLP and defamed Clinton with accusations of murder, he actually argued this point when attempting to keep critical info out of an article on a politician whose poltical affiliation he supports (Larry Craig): "All rumours have a source. It doesn't mean WP needs to repeat them. When Wikipedia's standards are less than the Washington Posts or the New York times, we have a problem") (diff coming) b) to censor legitimate free speech on another editor's userpage in a harassing manner link and c) to delete and censor valid discussion link (many more examples of this misuse of BLP can and will be provided) - FAAFA 11:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty's creation of page 'Jim Robinson (Free Republic)' on 1/31/07

The following example is of major importance

In the midst of content wars at Free Republic Tbeatty created the page Jim Robinson (Free Republic) on 01/31/07, and redirected it to Free Republic.

Note that this was while participants were hotly arguing if certain negative info 'defamed' Jim Robinson, and should be removed under BLP. Note that Tbeatty had (much) earlier added a BIO template onto an organization he supports, Protest Warrior, and had actually evoked BLP to omit criticism of 'unnamed conservative bloggers' (with no website mentioned) and the corporation PayPal during the very acrimonious AfD battles over highly notable voting rights activist, my cyberfriend Andy Stephenson. Internet Martyr:The life and cruel death of Andy Stephenson

This is where much of the 'bad blood' originated - although I will readily admit that my prior early participation on Protest Warrior was way out of line. I had been accustomed to 'no holds barred' brawling on several political discussion boards, and engaged in the same on the talk pages of the Protest Warrior article (as did others, until Admins showed up) I learned my lesson - much due to the proactive efforts of concerned editors such as MortyD, MONGO, TravB, and NuclearUmph - and compared to then I'm a paragon of civility (in the tradition of valued editors like MONGO, Calton, and Giano ;-) - FAAFA 00:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply


Comment by others: I did create the Jim Robinson redirect. He is a notable figure but not outside of Free Republic so it stands that all the information belongs there. I also made sure he was on the disambiguation page. Regardless of whether there is a link or not, negative unsourced information about living people should not be in any article. There is nothing contentious about that. Claiming that PayPal committed fraud without a source or unsourced negative information about website owners/founders is simply not allowed. -- Tbeatty 03:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

TBeatty is guilty of 'POV pushing'

The following example is of minor importance

A question to the Reference desk asked about Global Warming in Great Britain. Tbeatty even used this as an opportunity to push his politics, his POV, and his 'conspiracy theories' about the media and 'global cooling' ! "I believe the eastern United States has been cooling steadily [88] but lots of places have been cooling. Not that you would have heard it on the news :). There are lots of suggested outcomes of Global Warming mostly though it creates alarmism instead of representing scientific conclusions." Tbeatty 05:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC) link As for Tbeatty's 'conspiracy theories' about 'lots of suggested outcomes', 'alarmism', and 'global cooling', 600+ scientists from 40 countries say : 'HUH?' FAAFA reply

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Observe how FAAFA has tried to turn WP:BLP upside down. It's intended to protect the Wikipedia project from becoming a source of controversy and a target of libel lawsuits. The edits made by Tbeatty and by other like-minded editors, such as CyberAnth, are right on the mark. Jimbo Wales has said repeatedly that no information is preferable to poorly sourced derogatory information, and he has said it in the strongest and most crystal clear terms in the English language.
Left-wing POV warriors ignore that, however. They dredge up whatever negative information they can find about conservative organizations and politicians, no matter how unreliable the source. In the Free Republic article, they relied on Todd Brendan Fahey, a self-admitted drug addict and alcoholic who brags about the quantity and variety of drugs and alcohol he has abused, and the Walker/APJ combination of vicious partisanship and self-publication (even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Walker wrote it). ArbCom is urged to use this case as a platform to clarify a zero-tolerance, no compromises policy about poorly sourced derogatory material in article space, particularly in articles that are politically sensitive. Dino 13:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You appear to mistake your own biases for neutrality. New World Order is generally recopgnised as anti-semitic, removing sourced critical commentary is not WP:BLP it's whitewashing. Guy ( Help!) 11:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
I don't think I am party to this arbcom nor has any avenues of dispute resolution or comment been used. Regardless, I think those edits stand up to scrutiny and illustrate my point very well. Tbeatty 14:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
There are "Left-wing POV warriors" as well as "Righ-wing POV" warriors. Assessing involved editors contributions to the project, should be an aspect that the ArbCom should study. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Even here you misrepresent what I wrote. The question was about localized cooling of the U.K. which is a predicted outcome of some climate models that predict overall warming. The fact that global warming is occuring does not mean that there are not regions of cooling. In fact, the citation I provided was from the Union of Concerned Scientists which is a strong advocate of global warming theory. My pont was only that "global climate change" includes different changes in different parts of the world but the media focuses on global warming. It seems you have a beef with UCS, not me. -- Tbeatty 17:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The waters are already muddy enough without dragging Tbeatty in. His disaputes with FAAFA appear to be separate and largely unrelated, I don't think they illuminate the Free Republic case particularly. I don't see we should be making findings of fact in respect of Tbeatty and his interactions wiht others, or theirs with him, as that would be a separate ArbCom and would require separate prior dispute resolution. Guy ( Help!) 11:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Everyone who brings evidence to an Arbcom hearing can be studied for their actions, I believe its normalyl a warning that admins give to people and possibly its also on the arbcom page. Since TBeatty has choosen to involve themselves in this dispute and bring up evidence against FAAFA, that was taken from my userspace regarding actions that FAAFA has already been punished for, I think its only fair that their own actions are examined. -- Nuclear Zer0 17:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Tbeatty created a sock puppet account to taunt and harass me

Tbeatty created this sock puppet User:Fairness_and_Accuracy_for_Aquaman "Tbeatty's Super Friend Sock Puppet account" solely to taunt and harass me by vandalizing my user page. see He complains about my actions when his own actions have been similar, and he even created a sock puppet account solely to taunt and bait me. (kudos to TB for his dedication ! An SPA for a single act of taunting and baiting is 'impressive', to say the least !) More examples in Evidence - FAAFA

DeanHinnen edits disruptively

1) Hinnen's behaviour on Peter Roskam shows a pattern of disruptive editing, as does the dispute with respect to the original research and TJ's writings. The amount of disruption Hinnen has caused is out of all proportion with his substantive contributions to main space. Edits to the Roksam article include removal of sourced material [89], repeatedly re-inserting material judged trivial by other editors [90]. Comments off wiki [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1726044/posts] indicate a storng connection between Free Republic and Peter Roskam.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
"Removal of sourced material" enforces WP:BLP in this case, because Wikipedia must avoid the appearance of siding with the critics. That article, about a freshman Congressman with one month of service, was 10 times as long and contained far more criticism than the article about Dan Burton, a controversial 12-term congressman. It was 12 times as long and contained far more criticism than the article about Frank Ballance, a congressman who was sentenced to four years in prison for a felony committed while in office.
When reviewing the repeated re-insertion of material "judged trivial by other editors," the Arbitrators are asked to consider that in most cases, the "other editors" are BenBurch and FAAFA, dragging around the content dispute from Free Republic and Wikistalking me everywhere I go. Dino 13:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
So you say. But you have a far-right perspective, and others (including others who are long-standing editors not party to this dispute) disagree with both your interpretation and the way in which you pursued your agenda. Guy ( Help!) 11:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I want you to know, sir, that I deeply resent your use of the term "far right" to describe my perspective. I have resented it ever since the first time I saw it. Every time I've thought about it before now, I've become too angry to answer it in a civil manner. It carries with it inferences that I'm a member of the Ku Klux Klan, or the World Church of the Creator, or some similar hideously racist organization. Such pejoratives are lethal to collegiality. WP:AGF goes out the window. Please refactor that comment and do not employ such deeply offensive remarks in the future, sir.
I am an ordinary conservative, sir. Sixty-one million of us voted for George W. Bush in the 2004 election. We hold bake sales to support the local high school marching band. We apply fresh coats of white paint to our picket fences. We mow our lawns. We drive our children to soccer practice in minivans, and serve as Scoutmasters for Boy Scout troops. We go to church on Sunday mornings and enjoy softball games on Sunday afternoons.
We do not burn crosses on people's front lawns. Dino 20:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy ( Help!) 17:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Much more concerned about legal threats than POV pushing and there has been plenty of POV pushing by all parties here. If a ban is done on Dino based on his editing history, then much the same can also be said of FAAFA and to a lesser degree BenBurch.-- MONGO 05:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Not disputed. FAAFA is certainly disruptive. On the other hand, we can scarcely consider Dino's many, many assertions of disruptive editing of others without considering Dino's own editing style, which is combative to say the least. Guy ( Help!) 11:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I hesitate to get involved with this at all, but I'd like to register my deep puzzlement at the apparent connotations, heretofore unknown to me, of the term "far right." I consider myself far-left, but not radical, communist, socialist, anarchist, or any other analogy one might care to draw to extremist groups on the other end of the spectrum. I'm just significantly more liberal than most of the population - far to the left on the political spectrum. I've always used "far right" in a similar context, and never heard an objection from conservative friends or debate opponents. Not saying you have no grounds for offense, but please understand that the term may have been used in a spirit totally different from the one you seem to have attached to it. ShaleZero 21:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It's a term that can mean many different things, apparently, which is why using epithets to characterize an editor is generally not a good idea. Best to be avoided by all sides. Thatcher131 21:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

DeanHinnen is here for an argument

1) DeanHinnen ( talk · contribs) arrived with all guns blazing. Leaving aside the fact that his language throughout this RFAR has implied that he believes he's in an episode of The Sopranos, within his first couple of dozen edits were contributions to the baseless Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/BenBurch created by a sockpuppet of Bryan, requesting the indefinite blocking of BenBurch and FAAFA [91], archiving out discussion of sockpuppetry by Bryan [92] and making the much discussed and originally pretty overt legal threat [93]. The only reason for the delay in prosecuting his grievances against BenBurch and FAAFA appears to be that he was blocked from 15 Jan to 25 Jan, due to his editing from the same IP address as banned user BryanFromPalatine. Whether this is DeanHinnen's own fight or he is carrying on BryanFromPalatine's fight by proxy, it is clear that DeanHinnen's primary purpose in coming to Wikipedia was (a) to oppose the edits of liberal editors and (b) to pursue a vendetta against BenBurch and FAAFA. In this regard DeanHinnen's behaviour appears to closely mirror that of BryanFromPalatine.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Endorse - The very words I have been trying to find. -- BenBurch 20:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Loaded with the distortions and inflammatory language so characteristic of JzG's participation here. Dino 17:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. I think this is actually the crux of the problem: DeanHinenn has come here to "right great wrongs", but the Wikipedia community at large appears unconvinced that they are wrongs at all. Guy ( Help!) 14:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
a nit, there seems to be a stray apostrophe in the title and I think "all guns blazing" is rather more colorful than required but this does seem to be an accurate summary of matters. I'd note that when I gave Dean one of my many warnings and cautions, this was his reply, via email: "I believe I've done all the thinking that I need to do about how to fit it better around here." OK. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

DeanHinnen's edits advance a political agenda

1) DeanHinnen's edits to main space advance a political agenda in line with the Free Republic website and forums, e.g. [94] - on further investigation it turns out that (a) there is no evidence that Pelosi had specifically requested a C-32, and (b) White House Press Secretary Tony Snow characterized the story as "silly" and "unfair to the speaker.", further that neither the White House nor Pelosi's office were involved in direct negotiations over her transport and that it was a matter between the Sergeant at Arms and the Pentagon. Bill Livingood regretted that his security concerns and request to the Pentagon had been made into a political issue. This edit is at the very least highly questionable if not an outright violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy ( Help!) 17:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
So do FAFFA and BenBurch's edits. Individual editors can have agendas as long as they work well within the system and the resulting article does not itself have an agenda. The question is, did the behavior of the parties get in the way of this? Thatcher131 01:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The behaviour of the parties has been pretty poor, with the possible exception of BenBurch who at least shows willing when asked to pull back. The question, I feel, is: is the balance of good and bad a net positive? In Dean's case, I'd say not. I struggled to find a single uncontentious edit from him. Given that he is the newcomer, and has arrived primarily to carry on a fight for which we already banned one editor, I don't feel we're getting much out of the bargain. Guy ( Help!) 19:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

BenBurch has systematically destroyed evidence of his misconduct

1) In an effort to avoid a block or reduce its severity, BenBurch has deliberately and systematically destroyed or concealed evidence of the frequency and flagrancy of his violations of WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and possibly other policies. The Arbitration Committee will not reward such efforts to destroy or conceal evidence; instead, they force the Committee to assume the worst.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. For example, while BFP was blocked, BenBurch engaged in taunting him: placement of an image on BFP's Talk page, [95] then removing it after an admin objected. [96]
This is the URL address for the image: http://whiterosesociety.org/images/owned-cat.jpg Clicking on the link today produces a nice happy image of flowers. But at the time it was posted in December, as indicated by the image title "owned-cat.jpg" it was a color photo of a dead kitten stuffed into a jar. The jar was labeled, "Owned." As Webmaster of that website, BenBurch had no trouble switching that image for a more innocent-looking one to conceal his taunting of BFP.
No wonder JzG thinks this individual is less culpable than FAAFA.
Similarly, these links once led to the archives of BenBurch's Talk page:
Archive 1 Beginning - June 2006
Archive 2 June 2006 - December 3rd 2006
BenBurch has redirected these links, because the archives of his Talk page were wallpapered with previous warnings about his misconduct. He realized that his own Talk archives supported him in the same way that a hangman's noose supports a condemned criminal. So he destroyed the links, forcing anyone attempting to make a case against him to laboriously reconstruct that evidence from the page history.
The Arbitration Committee is strongly encouraged to explicitly condemn the destruction and concealment of such evidence, and discourage similar actions in all future ArbCom proceedings, by taking the necessary action against BenBurch. Dino 02:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This is what Archive 1 should probably look like.
This is what Archive 2 should probably look like.
Somehow, this exchange got snipped out between Archive 1 and Archive 2, so perhaps the Committee should take a look at it. Dino 02:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You do realize that you have pasted the wrong links, right? Those never were the links I had on my User Talk page. Those links were;
Archive 1 Beginning - June 2006
Archive 2 June 2006 - December 3rd 2006
And I discontinued linking them because I adopted a policy of blanking my User Talk page when I feel like it and letting people use the history if they really want something old.
Now, how you getting your links wrong equals me concealing something though my hackerly black arts is something that you had best now explain to the assembled multitudes.
And let me depart from strict civility for a moment to say that this allegation is a crock. -- BenBurch 04:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You do realize that you have pasted the wrong links, right? Those never were the links I had on my User Talk page.
We'll see about that in the morning, when I have a little more time to investigate. In the meantime, would you care to explain how that "owned-cat.jpg" photo on your website got switched to a photo of a couple of pretty little flowers, and would you care to post the original photo of a dead kitten stuffed in a jar with the label "Owned" right here? And by the way, would you please provide further details about the left-wing meatpuppet recruiting that you've been doing at Democratic Underground since October 2005? Thanks. Dino 04:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I *never* posted a picture of a dead cat in a jar. And I defy you to prove that I did. I love cats and would only *ever* post pictures of live cats, though sometimes they are doing ridiculous things. Retract that obscene statement. -- BenBurch 14:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
There, it's a cat in a container again. Happy?  :-) -- BenBurch 14:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Okay, Dean, since you now know this was your error, please retract it. -- BenBurch 22:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Still no retraction or apology as of this date in spite of having had it proven to him that he made a gross error. -- BenBurch 19:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute is alleged disruptive editing of the article Free Republic (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). On the one side, Fairness And Accuracy For All ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly known as NBGPWS ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) and BenBurch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are allegedly anti-Free Republic; on the other side are DeanHinnen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who claims to work for Free Republic, and BryanFromPalatine ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
"Allegedly anti-Free Republic." Well, let's see. Where should I begin? There's so much evidence. BenBurch is the founder and administrator of a website called WhiteRoseSociety.org which seeks to prove that the Bush Administration represents the rise of fascism in America. "Fighting the Rise of the New Fascism." The website has provided several puerile "Bush = Hitler" references in the past. Since the lead of the Free Republic article described it as a "rubber stamp for Bush Administration policy" for a couple of months, the COI should be obvious. BenBurch also acknowledges that he was a long-term and active member of Democratic Underground, a left-wing rival of Free Republic, before he was banned. (That admission was made on his Talk page and he recently deleted links to his archives, thereby concealing and effectively destroying the evidence against him.)
FAAFA has also admitted that he is a member of DU, posting there "at least once or twice a week." [97] He speaks in hushed and reverent tones about BenBurch's work on WhiteRoseSociety.org. The COI problems of these two should be very, very clear. Dino 21:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
"hushed and reverent tones" That was good Hinnen! You do have a flair for fragrant hyperbole! FAAFA
Comment by others:
Proposed. Got to begin at the beginning. Thatcher131 14:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The real beginning was when BenBurch started recruiting meatpuppets at Democratic Underground in October 2005. Dino 22:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Additional disputes

2) In addition to the Free Republic dispute, Tbeatty ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has introduced evidence alleging that Fairness And Accuracy For All/NBGPWS is and has been a contentious and disruptive editor on many other articles. Much of this evidence has already been the subject of a Request for comment.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. More basic background. Thatcher131 14:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, Precisely, there is a prior Rfc and sadly, the situation detailed there has continued unabated.-- MONGO 05:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Note to MONGO : I learned from one of the best! (but I try to use more sarcasm) LINK I am forever in your debt ;-) - FAAFA 06:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, problems seem to persist wherever you edit.-- MONGO 09:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
But the attempts to cover your tracks never seems to work well.-- MONGO 09:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Cover my tracks? That sounds like a 'CT' to me MONGO! ;-) I changed that post to make it even more descriptive and accurate! (and less biting) Too bad I don't have admin powers and then I could erase my posts and even their histories, eh? Lighten up, bro! It's all good! (since 11/8 anyway) Peace, bro! - FAAFA 10:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It should be noted that MONGO has had a long history of opposing FAAFA and standing up for TBeatty. It should also be noted that most of TBeatty's evidence was taken from my userspace where it was compiled and dealt with in a RfC that led to a good outcome for everyone but myself and FAAFA. Using past events that have already led to punishments and resolutions in an Arbcom, in order to bring more punishment, is overkill, its also not preventative, its double punishment, and against the point of Arbcom. -- Nuclear Zer0 17:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
In my proposed findings of fact, I'm going to stick to the BFP/Dean vs FAFFA/BB matter. The arbitrators can certainly pursue Tbeatty's evidence if they want, or Tbeatty could try to open a separate case. Thatcher131 01:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Wise choice. Otherwise this'll be all over the project by the time it's done. Guy ( Help!) 20:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Free Republic

3) An edit war developed at Free Republic on December 9 over the insertion of critical material. [98] [99] [100] [101] BryanFromPalatine was blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR. [102]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
More background. Thatcher131 14:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I think we need more on the FR war. I've also moved FAFFA's proposals here since they related to FR rather than Roskam. Thatcher131 01:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Guilt by association

3.1) The disputed edits seek to portray Free Republic in a negative light through guilt by association. [103] [104] [105] [106] [107]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Evidence will show that BenBurch and I have been NPOV and fair in our edits to the Free Republic article (WP:NPOV states "all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one") and furthermore, several admins noted that Dino/Bryan and their proxies had attempted to exclude any and all valid sourced criticism. A review of the edit history will show that I added much more info that is neutral or even 'positive' than info which could be considered critical. Such additions were a) Jim Robinson biographical history b) FR's couterprotest activities in opposition to Code Pink at Walter Reed Hospital c) Tony's Snow's FR participation d) The Dixie Chicks 'crediting' FR as being 'instrumental' in the country-music station boycott of their music. - FAAFA
Until very recently, your edits consisted of an effort to find any negative material about Free Republic anywhere on the Internet — no matter how abysmally sourced in partisan self-publication, drug abuse and alcoholism — and dump it into the article, in complete disregard for WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, WP:BLP, WP:RS and Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises. The January 7 version of the article is a hatchet job, and a side-by-side comparison of that version with Democratic Underground confirms that it's a hatchet job, sir. Dino 18:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Every diff I cited shows an attempt to portray Free Republic (the forum) in a bad light based on the statements of selected posters, or the founder. You're smart enough to know that you can't come right out and say "Free Republic supports death threats against liberals." [108] Trying to accomplish the same thing through guilt by association, even using a reliable source, doesn't make it acceptable. Thatcher131 00:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:NPOV states "all significant published points of view are to be presented" - FAAFA 02:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
See here, for example. Thatcher131 03:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Here are more examples of my bad light - dare I call them smear tactics ? :
JimRob Bio and
Tony Snow and
Dixie Chicks and
Discussion (important reading as it shows Bryan's sock invasion) and
Walter Reed (entire Walter Reed - Code Pink section written by 'moi') - FAAFA 08:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Note to Thatcher131 : Your own political procilivities are well-known and I expect will be taken into account by any astute and aware Arbitrator. Some may eventually succeed in whitewashing the Free Republic article as is their goal, but any interested reader need only venture off Wiki and read Free Republic itself - and comments from the founder himself - comments such as calling genuine American War Hero and Prisoner of War (over 5 years) John McCain [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1601416/posts 'A treasonous bastard'] and 'traitor to your country' and they will find the truth. Carry on ! ;-) - FAAFA 06:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment in response to DeanHinnen's comment below. The documentation of 100 people showing up at an event FR hoped 20,000 would show up at is an entirely different section, written at a totally different time than the Walter Reed section. Also, FR's Kristinn Taylor said 20,000, and it's in the WAPO article. You've claimed 10,000 more than once. I suggest you review the advice you've been given on Original Research and stop playing fast and loose with the truth. - FAAFA 19:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Content, may or may not be germane. Thatcher131 17:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This ArbCom case is about editors' behavior. Nothing else. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree. Two editors were seeking to portray Free Republic in a negative light through guilt by association. That is part of their behavior. In an attempt to rehabilitate his track record, FAAFA started writing the Walter Reed/Code Pink section, but even that was spin-doctored in a way that cast Free Republic in a bad light, i.e. specifying that a rally organizer prepared for 10,000 people and only 100 showed up. Dino 13:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Somewhat problematic. Consider: if an animal rights group has a number of members who become known for taking direct action, and the group does nothing to distance itself from that, including leaving their posts on its web forums unmoderated, does that not reflect on the group? All we need here are reliable secondary sources who make the connection; if the connection is made and said to be significant by reliable secondary sources then we need to reflect it in the article.. Guy ( Help!) 18:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

FAAFA's early FR efforts were in Good Faith

3.2) It is proposed that FAAFA's participation in editing and discussing the Free Republic article was within the bounds of WP, and showed civility and harmony, good faith, and a willingness to compromise and reach consensus, even with parties with whom he disagreed, (anon-IP no-history disruptive editors excluded) prior to the arrival of BryanFromPalatine on Dec. 05, 2007. -

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. FAAFA 00:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
It would be less confusing to comment on existing proposals than to write your own that are just the opposite of what I said. Thatcher131 00:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It says before the arrival of BryanFP on Dec 05. Read the page histories if you don't believe me. - FAAFA 01:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
"he started it" is not a particularly strong defense. Thatcher131 01:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I'll look into pre-BFP editing. Thatcher131 01:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I ask you to honestly consider if 'he started it' - when 'HE' was DeanHinnen's admitted 'brother' - who created over a half-dozen highly-developed sock puppet account-personas to 'vote', participate in structured mediation and sway consensus - and the individual RFCU's (all conclusive) and ANI's, etc, that took weeks of time that could have been spent editing - wouldn't affect any editor's conduct. AND, I freely admit that after DeanHinnen's second day, when we found the TJ Walker article Hinnen denied that he wrote, and his dealings with WMF were exposed - I suspended AGF as allowed under AGF. - FAAFA 02:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
There have been a couple of arbitration cases where the arbitrators only took action against the worst offender, on the expectation that with that editor removed, everyone else would settle down. You will note I am not proposing any remedies, just trying to lay out the facts (with some interpretation) in a messy business where a lot of the early workshop proposals were of the "Mom, he touched me!" "He touched me first!" variety. It will be interesting to see whether the arbitrators take this narrow view (advocated by your other proposals) or a broader view. Thatcher131 02:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The state of Free Republic on December 4 was not good. one version You have multiple instances of guilt by association, unsourced POV criticism, and almost no reliable sources except inline links to FR. You have nothing to be proud about. Thatcher131 14:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply

BenBurch's early FR efforts were in Good Faith

3.3) It is proposed that BenBurch's participation in editing and discussing the Free Republic article was within the bounds of WP, and showed civility and harmony, good faith, and a willingness to compromise and reach consensus, even with parties with whom he disagreed, (anon-IP no-history disruptive editors excluded) prior to the arrival of BryanFromPalatine on Dec. 05, 2006. -

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
FAAFA 00:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply


Comment by others:
It would be less confusing to comment on my proposal rather than just write a new proposal that is the opposite of what I said. Thatcher131 00:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It says before the arrival of BryanFP on Dec 05. Read the page histories if you don't believe me. - FAAFA 01:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Ditto above. Thatcher131 01:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

BryanFromPalatine was disruptive and exhausted good faith

3.4) BryanFromPalatine was disruptive, incivil, and acted in a manner that would exhaust the good faith of any editor.

  • Dec. 06: If you're going to mention that Chad Castagana was a freeper in the Free Republic article, I'm going to start rummaging through all the articles about left-of-center organizations and making sure that their John Wayne Gacys are mentioned prominently. link
  • Dec. 07: Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Turnabout is fair play. What goes around, comes around. If it is appropriate for Wikipedia to include information about Chad Castagana and the Chuy's in the FR article, then it is appropriate to include information about every registered Democratic Party voter who was ever found guilty of a crime in the Democratic Party article; it is appropriate to include information about every person who ever had an account at DU who was ever found guilty of a crime in the DU article; etc., etc. link
  • Dec. 08: Regarding the inclusion of Chad Castagana material in this article, I've journeyed to the article about the Democratic Party and added a section about John Wayne Gacy, as well as two Democratic presidents who have been impeached, and 23 Democratic Congressmen who have been convicted on criminal charges in the past 40 years link


Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed : - FAAFA 02:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
There may well be merit to laying out these facts but the use of bolding and scare quotes etc. for effect may not be very useful. Best to rewrite this as much more neutral, I think. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It actually was pretty good. I've rewritten a bit. If adopted, the arbitrators may drop the quotes and keep the links, but not a bad idea to put the quotes up. Thatcher131 22:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Sockpuppetry by BryanFromPalatine

4) After being blocked, BryanFromPalatine edited Free Republic and Talk:Free Republic using a variety of IP addresses and sockpuppets (see evidence [109] [110] [111] [112] and checkuser results. Bryan was blocked twice more and then banned for disruption [113].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Background. Thatcher131 14:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes. We should probably look out the ANI threads here, Bryan's disruption was discussed several times before a ban was enacted. Guy ( Help!) 12:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

FAAFA used poorly sourced negative material in a biographical article

In January 2007, FAAFA repeatedly added poorly sourced negative information (in violation of WP:RS) to the lead of the article about Free Republic, which has previously sued and won $60,000 from the City of Fresno for libel. The material contained an allegation that Free Republic was negligent in allowing death threats about President Clinton to remain on the site for several months. The only source on the Internet containing this allegation was an extremely partisan left-wing website called AmericanPolitics.com, which expresses pride in mocking and ridiculing George W. Bush and the "neo-con cabal" that supports him. The material covered the period prior to 2001, when Jim Robinson was the sole operator of the website and was the only person responsible for policing its content. To the extent that this is an article about Jim Robinson, a living person, this editing was in violation of WP:BLP. During the course of the month of January, AmericanPolitics.com deleted the material from its own website pages in spite of its stated commitment to ridicule Bush and the "neo-con cabal."

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 13:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:

DeanHinnen

5) DeanHinnen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who claims to be associated with Free Republic's legal team, contacted the Wikimedia Foundation about an allegation that Free Republic was negligent in allowing death threats about President Clinton to remain on the site. This claim was sourced to an online publication by journalist TJ Walker; DeanHinnen alleges the article is a hoax and was not written by Walker. WMF employee Carolyn-WMF ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) suggested DeanHinnen edit the article himself, but also removed the allegation. [114] Dean explains the edit [115]. BenBurch recreated the paragraph using a different source [116].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
One extremely important point, Thatcher. The "recreated paragraph" that used "a different source" did not allege "that Free Republic was negligent in allowing death threats about President Clinton to remain on the site." The distinction is critical. Any website open to editing by the public and dealing with politics, particularly in the polarized atmosphere of the past 14 years, is going to have a few threats of violence posted now and then. Free Republic deletes them immediately. The first version of the paragraph was libelous. The second was merely biased: something we've come to expect when Democratic Underground alumni are writing an article about Free Republic. Dino 03:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
And of course Freepers are never biased at all :-) Guy ( Help!) 12:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Continuing. Thatcher131 17:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

DeanHinnen blocked

5.1) DeanHinnen was blocked as a sockpuppet of BryanFromPalatine. After discussion on unblock-L, he was unblocked. Dean claims to be BryanFromPalatine's brother; checkuser shows they use the same IP address.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Laying out the history some more. Thatcher131 17:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I think it was established "use the same IP address at times" not exclusively the same ones. Georgewilliamherbert 00:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Let's be clear about this. Many alleged sockpuppets had no RFCUs. At least two alleged sockpuppets (ArlingtonTX and 12ptHelvetica) never used this IP address. BFP himself edited only very briefly from this IP address. DP1976 and ClemsonTiger made extensive use of this IP address. Dino 16:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Let's be clear about this. All the blocked socks, including you, showed identical, identically disruptive, and identically obsessive behaviour. We are not required to bother CheckUsers when the otucome is blindingly obvious - indeed they habitually reject obvious cases on precisely those grounds. You originally appeared different because you also made legal threats, which the others had not, but since we now have the statements from past disputants that Bryan's full name is Bryan Dean Hinnen the time is come when we should apply the duck test. Guy ( Help!) 14:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Legal threats by DeanHinnen

5.2) User:DeanHinnen has posted implied legal threats. [117], [118].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Discussion Fred Bauder 16:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Nonsense. I have always made it absolutely crystal clear that I was trying to PREVENT litigation. The finding of Unblock-en-l unanimously confirmed that I was seeking in good faith to remove libelous material from the Free Republic article. Dino 23:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Notice DeanHinnen's wording below implying that he is a party to FR's legal actions : "" We didn't sue APJ because..." and "Please do something about this before Wikipedia gets sued, the way the City of Fresno got sued."' - FAAFA 23:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse - As far as I can tell, whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen is here specifically to legally intimidate Wikipedia and its college of editors into removing all criticism of the über-far-right political causes, groups, and politicians he represents. -- BenBurch 15:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply


Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy ( Help!) 23:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree that those comments are implied legal threats. If an attorney for Company Y shows up and says "Nice encyclopedia. It would be a shame if anything happened to it, like, say, getting sued by Company Y," I think it's fair to say he has made a threat. Particularly for the BLP notice, I am broadly sympathetic to Dean's point that an organization should be extended similar protection to a person, and I appreciate that he seems to have been trying to get attention to that point. Still, IMHO, Guy is right on this issue. TheronJ 22:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If an attorney for Company Y shows up and says "Nice encyclopedia. It would be a shame if anything happened to it, like, say, getting sued by Company Y," I think it's fair to say he has made a threat.
First of all, that's not what I said sir. That's what Tony Soprano's thugs would say to the bakery cashier. Second, I point out yet again that I'm not Free Republic's legal counsel. Let me be completely clear about this. I am merely a volunteer for the legal team. Like Wikipedia, Free Republic is run almost entirely by volunteers, each of whom provides his own professional expertise in his own area of expertise, free of charge. Like Wikipedia, Free Republic has one attorney who gets paid, but it isn't me. I collect no fees. I work pro bono. I have never participated in litigation for them in any capacity. I do not decide who they sue and who they don't sue. Without exception, I have always advised against litigation, preferring instead to seek amicable resolutions of disputes; and in those disputes where I've participated, I have always been successful.
There is no reason why I couldn't serve in a similar capacity for Wikipedia if we can just get past the current unpleasantness, and get these two off my back.
There are many stars in the Free Republic galaxy; and I'm just a faint little star out on the edge of that galaxy. Others shine much more brightly. My brother, for example, has been quite the accomplished legal warrior for them. Several years ago, he was instrumental in negotiating the reduction of a summary judgment (against Free Republic) of about $2 Million in the Los Angeles Times lawsuit down to a mere $10,000. This was more than a 99% reduction. Failure would have meant death for Free Republic. They literally saved the website. Furthermore, the negotiated settlement removed any suggestion from the final order that Free Republic violated copyright law. It was absolutely brilliant. And there have been other brilliant victories that didn't get as much publicity, such as the City of Fresno case. I've done nothing approaching that.
But on a clear night, I can provide a little bit of light ... and perhaps gently illuminate an amicable solution here and there. Notice that the libelous material in the Free Republic article has now been removed. Dino 03:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Dean, your vexatiousness is exceeded only by your hubris. Stop grandstanding. Guy ( Help!) 15:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
When I remain quiet, people lie about me; but when I speak up, I'm accused of making legal threats, or grandstanding, or "vexatious process," etc., etc. Dino 17:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Dean, per Wikipedia policies, concerned parties can either deal with problem articles by using back channels, including talking to lawyers and making legal threats if they feel that is necessary, or by editing the articles on Wiki through the normal editorial process. Making legal threats on Wiki is prohibited. Explaining how successful you have been in defending Free Republic, or claiming that you are here to save Wikipedia from lawsuits, may be admirable, but it entirely misses the point of the WP:NLT policy. Thatcher131 17:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Understood. I apologize. Dino 18:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Good! Now, care to apologize for using sock puppets, for being disruptive, for attacking any number of people? Then we'd be getting somewhere close to resolving this problem. -- BenBurch 18:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

About that lawsuit..... "How FreeRepublic.com lost a "First Amendment" lawsuit and wasted $110,000 on a frivolous lawsuit – and how their right-wing nutcase attorney got disbarred". Since Hinnen now claims that APJ removed the TJ Walker article because it was 'libelous', this one must be accurate, or, as a member of Free Republic's legal team, he would have had them remove it too. They seem to have an entirely different 'take' on this lawsuit. - FAAFA 14:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Good. Keep dragging around that unreliable partisan source like a stray dog with a mouth full of roadkill. It tells all who see your posts here exactly what you're all about. We didn't sue APJ because they're a small-circulation partisan nest of vipers. It would cost a lot of money and the benefits would be minimal. Just consider the source and that article will be seen for what it is: a web of lies, distortion and ridicule carefully woven around a few tiny bits of truth. Dino 17:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
But you claimed : (regarding the TJ Walker article) "AmericanPolitics.com pulled the article and blanked the page. They did this because it was libelous, and they didn't want to get sued like the City of Fresno got sued. Please do something about this before Wikipedia gets sued, the way the City of Fresno got sued." link I'll find the quotes where you talk about how litigious FR and JimRob were, and how JimRob 'liked' to sue people. Odd that you would spend $110,000 to sue one troll - but not to sue a site that is anything but 'low circulation' as you falsely claim - a site that has a second 'libelous' article about FR on it! American Politics Journal is the fastest-growing political magazine on the Internet - Over 39 million hits per year -Nearly 4500 articles archived online -Over 10,000 subscribers to the daily e-mail edition, including some of America's foremost opinion makers. about APJ - FAAFA 00:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I've moved this to fit my current train of thought. I think these comments are fairly described above by Theron ("Nice encyclopedia. It would be a shame if anything happened to it,").
About APJ
Thanks for that moment of candor. Here's what they're all about: revenge for the way Bill Clinton was treated by Free Republic and other conservative critics. "[We] subscribe to the doctrine of columnist Paul Kirkpatrick [expressed after the December 2000 Supreme Court decision], who could not have put it better: 'I will give our new president the same level of support and encouragement that was given to the current administration by such luminaries as Tom DeLay, Trent Lott, Rush Limbaugh, Richard [Mellon] Scaife, Ted Olson, [Paul Greenberg] and, of course, George W. himself. In other words, I will badmouth the president daily, I will work in whatever small way I can to defeat and undermine his programs and agenda ... and I will criticize and ridicule his wife and children at every opportunity.' The same goes for the neo-fascist cabal that tried to 'bring down' President Bill Clinton ... We mock and ridicule their views, their overweening arrogance, their proto-fascist leanings -" and are willing and eager to republish any lie, from any source, as long as it makes Free Republic and the rest of the "neo-fascist cabal" look bad.
"We mock and ridicule their views ..." No wonder you've defended them like the Japanese defended Iwo Jima. They're exactly your kind of people. Dino 03:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Was any of this said on Wikipedia? Is any of it provably attributable to parties in this case? Or is it simply guilt-by-association? If you have no evidence that these statements were made by parties in this case or made on Wikipedia, the above should simply be removed to talk as pointless irrelevant bluster. It does, however, illuminate the way your mind works and suggest the way your external agenda might fity your actions on Wikipedia. Several of us have concluded that you came here solely to pursue the agenda of the Free Republic website, and the statement above does indeed make it appear that not only is this your main agenda, but that your problem with the other partyies is entirely down to their political beliefs, which you clearly despise, rather than their editing. It weakens very considerably your claims of harrassment, by underscoring your bias and making it seem that anything they did would be unacceptable according to you. Guy ( Help!) 09:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Was any of this said on Wikipedia? Is any of it provably attributable to parties in this case?
That's the source whose libel FAAFA inserted into the lead of the article. Then both BenBurch and FAAFA fiercely defended it. FAAFA's worship of that virulently hate-filled website is crystal clear, sir: American Politics Journal is the fastest-growing political magazine on the Internet - Over 39 million hits per year -Nearly 4500 articles archived online -Over 10,000 subscribers to the daily e-mail edition, including some of America's foremost opinion makers. Take a look at the mission statement of BenBurch's website: "Fighting the Rise of the New Fascism," referring to George W. Bush.
Then look at their editing pattern: exclusively introducing criticism into articles about conservative politicians and organizations without regard for WP:RS or WP:BLP, while turning up the heat with inflammatory language such as "purged"; exclusively removing and muting criticism, no matter how well-founded, from articles about left-wing politicians and organizations; relentlessly attacking anyone who stands in their way; and very recently, attempting to conceal the evidence of their POV pushing with a few token edits in the opposite direction. Dino 17:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply

DeanHinnen wrote ; "There is no reason why I couldn't serve in a similar capacity [legal advisor] for Wikipedia if we can just get past the current unpleasantness, and get these two off my back." Now that's funny ! ;-) - FAAFA 07:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hinnen still making implied legal threats: "In fact, isn't there an injunction against you? And don't you need to post a link to the text of the injunction on your User page at Wikipedia? Does failure to post that link constitute a violation of the injunction?" User:DeanHinnen|Dino 15:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC) link - FaAfA (yap) 21:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply

DeanHinnen is uncivil

5.3) DeanHinnen has been uncivil. Trolling [119] [120]. Personal remarks [121]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
For the "trolling," although it wasn't intended that way, I was blocked without a nanosecond of hesitation for 24 hours. For the other "personal remark," all are invited to make of it what they will. Dino 17:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. Thatcher131 00:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Peter Roskam

6) DeanHinnen, BenBurch and Fairness And Accuracy For All have edit warred at Peter Roskam (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). [122]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I don't think I have edit warred there AT ALL. I have taken every dispute I had over edits to talk. -- BenBurch 20:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. Thatcher131 00:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't think Ben was a problem there. Calton removed text, Dino reverted, Ben reverted again with a civil edit summary and, in line with that edit summary, took it to talk. Or do you have a different set of edits in mind? Guy ( Help!) 21:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

DeanHinnen at Peter Roskam

6.1) DeanHinnen's edits to Peter Roskam include removal of sourced material [123], repeatedly re-inserting material judged trivial by other editors [124]. Hinnen also removed poorly sourced negative information and guilt by association. "This article was far too long and contained far more criticism than Dan Burton, controversial 12-term Congressman" [125] [126] [127] (See this comment on the talk page and this sensible response.)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Peter Roskam is presently fully protected owning to Dean Hinnen's unabated edit-warring; [128] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenBurch ( talk • contribs)
Comment by others:
Proposed. Thatcher131 00:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I protected the article because of edit warring. I'm not entirely sure that DeanH is the only one to blame here. Rather than reflexively hit the block button for one user I protected the article to see if anyone is willing to work productively on the talk page. In my opinion as an editor, both sides have valid concerns with each others' edits. The problem is reverting without meaningful discussion and compromise. Thatcher131 16:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Fairness And Accuracy For All at Peter Roskam

6.2) FAAFA added negative information that was either poorly sourced or guilt by association that was of little direct relevance. [129] [130] They also removed positive information about Roskam that was judged to be of minor importance. [131] [132] [133].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Thatcher131 00:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

BenBurch at Peter Roskam

6.3) BenBurch added negative information that was either poorly sourced or guilt by association that was of little direct relevance. [134] [135] [136] They also removed positive information about Roskam that was judged to be of minor importance. [137] [138].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I deny the allegation. and I deny the alligator! I added material I believed than and believe now was sufficiently well sourced for this article and was NOT either guilt by association or of little direct relevance. I removed material that other editors agreed was too trivial to remain in the article. Nothing I have done on Peter Roskam has been anything but good edits intended to improve the article. -- BenBurch 15:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. Thatcher131 00:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
At least one of these was a repeat of a removal by User:Calton [139], the removal having been reverted several times by DeanHinnen without discussion on Talk. BenBurch took the text to Talk [140], with a civil edit summary [141]. Is Crain's Chicago Business a poor source? [142] Are we not allowed to mention ongoing funding controversy? Guy ( Help!) 13:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I live in the district of a conservative Republican congressman (call him Jones). About once a month I will get an anonymous recorded phone call (in violation of several telephone solicitation and election laws, FWIW) stating something like, "Congressman Smith received dirty money from a lobbyist, and gave some of it to Jones' campaign fund. Call Jones and demand that he return this dirty money." It certainly would be a scandal if Jones had received money directly from a lobbyist in return for political favors. It might be a scandal if the lobbyist were accused of improper fundraising, depending on whether Jones knew the money might be tainted. But if neither Smith nor the lobbyist have been accused of any wrongdoing by competent authorities (political opponents excepted, of course), then this is just an attempt to smear Jones through his association with Smith. In the Roskam case the "scandal" is manufactured by Roskam's opponents using two layers of guilt by association, i.e. the House leadership failed to act against Mark Foley, therefore they are complicit in "keeping Foley's secret"; the House leadership controls a pot of campaign funds, therefore anyone who accepts such funds will "rubberstamp" the decisions of the corrupt leadership. If you actually read the Crain's article, its nothing more than political theater. Thatcher131 13:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Coverage of an issue by a non partisan secondary source would 'decide' its notability. It could be argued that in the run-up to an election, where lots of issues (some manufactured by opponents) come to light in local media - that not all of it is notable. I think that might be the case with Peter Roskam - and that's for the editors who are working on any article to reach consensus on. That's the salient problem with political articles. Adept partisan 'Wikilawyers' (no names!) and consensus can turn any article into a hatchet-job or a hagiography, and unless its brought up for comment (and enough people care about it) or for mediation - nothing can be done about it. - FAAFA 23:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Crain's Chicago Business certainly is a RV-V publication. It is *the* Chicago financial paper. -- BenBurch 02:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Fairness And Accuracy For All is uncivil

7) User:Fairness And Accuracy For All is uncivil, and has engaged in baiting and trolling DeanHinnen. [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149]. Adding Image:Tin foil hat 2.jpg [150]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I propose: A hat-tip to my bud MortyD for the ever-useful 'tin' foil hat pic! (can I get a second?) - FAAFA
Comment by others:
Proposed. Thatcher131 00:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This is not funny, FAAFA. Georgewilliamherbert 01:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Joke or not, the finding is true. FAAFA has been uncivil. Durova Charge! 06:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply

BenBurch is uncivil

8) BenBurch has made uncivil comments to DeanHinnen, including baiting and trolling. [151] [152] [153] [154] "Hell yes I said bring it on. I can think of no other way to force him to get the attention of enough admins to finally get one of them to deal with him." [155]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Thatcher131 01:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Stalking by Fairness and Accuracy for All and BenBurch

9) Fairness and Accuracy for All and BenBurch had never edited Nancy Pelosi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) or Bill Nelson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) until after DeanHinnen edited there. [156] You're spouting tin foil hattery nonsense about DU. [157] [158] [159] It's obvious that dishonest POV warriors have been to work here

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
DeanHinnen made it clear (just like his brother and his brother's many socks) that after failing to archive his goals of 'whitewashing' the Free Republic article, he would try to attack the articles of liberal politicians. (only days after claiming that his only reason for being on Wiki was to prevent Wiki for being sued by Free Republic, an org who claims to represent as part of their 'legal team') (diffs coming) - FAAFA 01:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Did he actually come out and say that or was it your inference? (got a diff?) Also, while it may be acceptable or even a good idea to check somebody's other edits, I think your conduct in doing so left something to be desired. Thatcher131 01:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Looking for diffs - found this exchange from an Admin:
"I'm just trying to make the Republicans' articles and the Democrats' articles resemble one another. That's my agenda."(Dino) Then a good idea would be to make Republican articles better, not Democrat articles worse. Otherwise, WP:POINT, really. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:48, 13 Feb
It surprised me that Dino needs to be reminded that Wikipedia is not a soapbox; his pronouncements about Pelosi's alleged hypocrisy show clearly his reasons for including the material: not that it improves the article, but that it furthers his own agenda. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:59, 13 Feb Link - FAAFA 03:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Then a good idea would be to make Republican articles better, not Democrat articles worse.
I notice that you've taken great care to snip off my answer to JPGordon's comment, which is characteristic of your efforts to distort the evidence here. My answer was this: how, exactly, does well-sourced and notable criticism from a newspaper with one of the largest circulations in North America make the article worse? Before I added that comment, it was virtually devoid of criticism. One does not spend 20+ years in the House of Representatives and rise to the post of Speaker of the House, while adhering to a political position that is not even slightly moderate, without getting criticism from notable sources.
At any rate, it's been removed and I'm not challenging its removal. Instead, I've provided criticism from a Democratic Senate candidate, reported in exclusively left-of-center publications and I've heard not the slightest whisper of opposition. Apparently that is the only way to insert criticism in an article about a left-wing politician or organization here at Wikipedia, without being attacked and shouted down. The criticism must come from the left, and it must be published by the left, because only the left can be trusted.
Edit: This has proven to be prophetic. I've just made an attempt to insert criticism from a neutral and very reliable source, the Washington Post, concerning Pelosi's rejection of part of her own 100-Hour Plan within days of the November election. And I've been slapped down for it. Dino 15:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
... after failing to archive his goals of 'whitewashing' the Free Republic article, he would try to attack the articles of liberal politicians. ... (diffs coming)
I deny it. In fact, I've explicitly stated on at least two occasions that my goal is not to whitewash anything. Looking forward to seeing those diffs, sir. Dino 20:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Four days later. Still no diffs, but you've had plenty of time to carefully craft a demand for Arbitrators to call the Police Department. I take that to mean you can't find any diffs. Dino 16:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I maintain that I have stalked NOBODY. All of my edits to articles have been intended to improve those articles, and all reverts have been directed to discussion on article pages. This allegation is baseless. -- BenBurch 19:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. Thatcher131 01:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
And during this proceeding, he was [ blocked] for Wikistalking another editor. -- Tbeatty 13:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Mutual combat

1) DeanHinnen, FAAFA, and BenBurch engaged in mutual combat using Wikipedia as a venue; blame for initiating the dispute is not practical to apportion, and all parties are equally guilty of continuing and expanding it in various methods and numerous on-wiki venues.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. I don't think that trying to find "who started it" will get anywhere, and it doesn't matter. Georgewilliamherbert 00:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Up to a point. I think Dino and FAAFA are undoubtedly equally to blame, I am not so sure about BenBurch. Guy ( Help!) 12:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
He's been content to allow FAAFA to do most of the dirty work, sir, without making the slightest effort to restrain him. Dino 17:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Now, how on earth would I restrain him? Tell me exactly how? -- BenBurch 01:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Do you really need to ask, sir? You could have made remarks like this one, [160] but directed to him .... over and over and over. You could have sent him e-mails. You could have said, "Hey, if you're going down that road, you'll be going alone." But you didn't, sir. And you just kept on not doing anything like that, sir. Instead, you kept on accompanying him on search and destroy missions. Actions speak louder than words. By being there with him each and every time, and saying nothing to restrain him, you were loudly voicing your complete approval of everything he said and did. It's another facet of this case that JzG has "comprehensively ignored," sir. Dino 02:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Dino, have you ever, once, in all your life, considered keeping your mouth shut and letting other people get on with considering things? Your comment above makes me even more convinced that you are pursuing a vendetta and have no caring about the collateral damage you might cause, or the actual facts of the case. BenBurch is consistently more civil and greatly less argumentative than either you or FAAFA (of which pair you are currently the more disruptive by a wide margin), massively more so than Bryan ever was, and Ben seems to be genuinely prepared to work for a solution. The only solution you appear to be prepared to countenance is a vindictive ban against Be and FAAFA in retaliation for the ban your brother brought on himself by his own actions. The more you post the more I am convinced that you have no place on this project. Too combative and too dogmatic by half. Guy ( Help!) 09:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Dino, have you ever, once, in all your life, considered keeping your mouth shut and letting other people get on with considering things?
Yes, sir. Of course I've thought about it, sir. "Just shut up and go away" seems to be the prescribed remedy, sir. But when others constantly lie about the evidence, and deliberately post personal details in a manner that could expose my family to harassment, should I just shut up and take it? Dino 14:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Since you are so concerned, the best result is undoubtedly to shut up and go away. Your presence appears to have caused problems for your family which did not previously exist. Amazingly, your combative attitude has resulted in an escalation of the problem - who could have predicted that? I recommend you go to some other website where your bias and argumentation will be welcome. Guy ( Help!) 21:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Here's a peculiar thing about that analysis. The problems, and the escalation, were started on January 15. They were not caused by my presence here, but by a disclosure of BFP's personal information. I did not make that disclosure. All of my posts on January 15, thereafter on my Talk page, and at Unblock-en-l were models of civility. I challenge you to find anything I posted anywhere during that ten-day period that displayed a combative attitude. And yet the problem started, and the problem escalated. I think you have confused cause with effect: rather than any combative attitude of mine causing these problems for my family, the problems caused for my family (among other factors) have resulted in an attitude that is described as combative. Dino 22:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply

DeanHinnen is unfamilar with WP and is dishonest in his application of it

1) DeanHinnen has been campaiging to get a particular piece of information into the Peter Roskam article. (Roskam added an amendement to an energy bill) Roskam's involvement was only documented on the Congressman's website, and on thomas.gov which has the full text of every bill. Roskam wasn't even one of the bill's 15 cosponsors. The consenus was that since no one other the Congressman's website documented his participation, it wasn't notable. Hinnen repeatedly added this paragraph into the article despite consensus that it didn't belong. Hinnen then added a new ref to the paragraph, claiming that a Chigago Daily Herald article which he physically had, (it was no longer online) documented Roskam's involvement in this bill. Hinnen was asked several times to quote the relevent text - but refused each and every time - telling me that I should go to a library to read it. The article was found a couple days later, and it did not support Hinnen's claims AT ALL. It didn't even mention the bill. It was about Global Warming. Hinnen was dishonest. Furthermore, when I tried to explain that we rely on RS V secondary sources to judge notability, and since none of the media outlets in the Congressman's district thought that his particpation in the energy bill was notable enough to document - that we shouldn't either. His reply (today) was :"Why are you deferring all decisions about notability to the mainstream news media? Why are they the sole arbiters of what constitutes "notability"? Can't we make decisions like that ourselves?" Here's where Hinnen added the paragraph back in with a BOGUS ref. diff The article that Hinnen claimed documented Roskams energy bill participation. (he thought it wasn't available on line) Global Warming FaAfA (yap) 23:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply

More. I can't even begin to fathom how somone who has spent as much time on Wiki as DeanHinnen has could suggest "Why are you deferring all decisions about notability to the mainstream news media? Why are they the sole arbiters of what constitutes "notability"? Can't we make decisions like that ourselves?" What an idea! That way we could have an article on every high school and middle school in the United States! Actually we could have articles on every thing, person, idea, theory, band, song, neologism, subject etc that exists which has at least 5 or 10 people with computers and an interest in that subject! Why didn't I think of rewriting a fundamental cornerstone of WP like that !? (hits self on forehead!) - FaAfA (yap) 03:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Reply to Tbeatty : Slow down there big fella! Of course thomas has it. Thomas has EVERY bill. I never said it didn't. What I'm talking about is Hinnen adding back the paragraph with a NEW source, the Daily Herald Feb. 8 Global Warming article - which Hinnen claimed documented Roskam's involvement in the energy bill. He asked us to 'take his word' on that and wouldn't post the text. He told me to go to the library. The article he fallaciously used said NOTHING about Roskam's participation in that energy bill. This one. Global Warming - FaAfA (yap) 02:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Daily Herald Feb. 8 Global Warming article - which Hinnen claimed documented Roskam's involvement in the energy bill.
When did I make this claim? I made no such claim. Do you have a diff? Dino 03:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Your action made the claim diff as did your words. I urge the Arbitrators to read the discussion like "Four reliable sources, including the very same RS V daily newspaper..." (Daily Herald) "one paragraph about the Roskam amendment to alternative fuels legislation still doesn't pass muster here. Can you explain that, sir?" - FaAfA (yap) 05:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Your action made the claim ...
The diff you've cited only indicates that the source supports something in that paragraph. It doesn't indicate that the source supports the specific claim that it "documented Roskam's involvement in the energy bill." I am not responsible for your misunderstandings, sir. Dino 15:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply : This is the entirety of the material in the Global Warming article mentioning Roskam : "In terms of emissions, Rep. Peter Roskam of Wheaton said Congress should consider the issue. But he wanted assurances no manufacturing jobs would be lost as a result of any policy changes." That does not support anything in the energy legislation paragraph, and I assume that's why you refused to quote the text. Your actions and your words claimed that this Global Warming article supported the energy legislation paragraph. - FaAfA (yap) 22:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Why do you think it's dishonest when 5 seconds at thomas.loc.gov found it?

Item 1 of 1

NEW SEARCH | HOME | HELP

H.AMDT.8 (A007) Amends: H.R.547 Sponsor: Rep Roskam, Peter J. [IL-6] (offered 2/8/2007) AMENDMENT PURPOSE: An amendment to amend section 6 of the bill to make authorization of appropriations subject to pay as you go provisions.

STATUS:

2/8/2007 12:40pm: Amendment (A007) offered by Mr. Roskam. (consideration: CR H1365-1368; text: CR H1365) 2/8/2007 12:57pm: On agreeing to the Roskam amendment (A007) Agreed to by voice vote. ?? You lack of AGF is getting very tiresome. -- Tbeatty 02:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

His lack of AGF is really making me very weary. I'm sick and tired of it, I have done my absolute best to be civil (given the circumstances) and continue my efforts to improve and balance these articles. I invite anyone to find any fault at all with anything I have done on Wikipedia articles, assuming that I'm acting in good faith. I make mistakes, and I'll be the first to admit that. But I'm not being dishonest. There has also been a simultaneous dispute over the public domain nature of a photograph of Roskam. I have proven to be 100% correct in claiming that it was in the public domain all along, and others were the ones who were mistaken. I notice that FAAFA makes no mention of that. Dino 15:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
You must be very weary and tired then cause I stopped AGF with you on 01/16/07 after we found the TJ Walker article which you claimed "he didn't write" archived on the internet, and we discovered that you were the 'brother' of a permabanned troll who created a least half-a-dozen highly developed sockpuppet-personas who wasted WEEKS of our time and used up all my good faith (in this lifetime AND the next) towards anybody ( of the sock or meat puppet persuasion) named Hinnen. That would include you - and the text I posted yesterday from one of Bryan's sock accounts showed that the dozen+ strong, three generation encompassing family 'tribe' who he admitted made a 'collective' decision to all register on Wiki together was nothing more than a sock/meat puppet army. AGF allowed me to suspend AGF at the time FaAfA (yap) 23:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

User:DeanHinnen and User:BryanFromPalatine

1) Per RFAR/Iasson: "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets". User:DeanHinnen and User:BryanFromPalatine are either one and the same person or may be so treated for the purposes of discussion. BryanFromPalatine states that he was "active as part of the legal team for Free Republic"; DeanHinnen states that he is a member of the legal team of Free Republic; User Bryan on FreeRepublic claims to be a member of the legal team, in fact pretty much the same claim as "Dean" [www.freerepublic.com/~bryan/]. APJ states that the individual involved in the Free Republic suit was named Bryan Dean Hinnen. This may or may not be true. However, we have two accounts, both of whom claim to be or have been members of the legal team of Free Republic, in I think the same case, both of whom edit from the same IP address and both of whom exhibit the same combative style, the same bias, and the same vendetta against FAAFA and BenBurch.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed Guy ( Help!) 10:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Conflict of interest by DeanHinnen

1) DeanHinnen is associated with the administration of the Free Republic website [161].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 23:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

BenBurch

1) BenBurch is a liberal activist who maintains White Rose Society and a blog The Voice From the Whirlwind. He has expressed concern regarding the editing of DeanHinnen [162].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 23:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
And also is part-owner of Head On Radio Network, and Consultant to Nova-M Radio Network, and administrator of WhoreNet, a sexworker's rights mailing list. -- BenBurch 19:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Looking for [WhoreNet] is not recommended. Fred Bauder 22:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Sorry, should have mentioned that. It's a mailing list not a web site. You will find only a couple of mentions to it on Google that are actually mentions of it... The most significant is probably Tracy Quan's Salon.com article about it. [163] -- BenBurch 22:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:

Fairness And Accuracy For All has engaged in discourtesy, personal attacks, and gross behavior

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who edited before October 29, 2006 as NBGPWS ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has engaged in gross behavior [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], and [181].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 01:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:

Let me address those instances one by one. 1) I created said drawing in response to the heated arguments on the ejaculation article talk page, and in response to this specific request " I support replacing the current image with a clinical, encyclopedic drawing. Is a freely licensed one currently available?" Johntex\talk 05:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC) - link but decided against posting it since (as good as it is) I felt it wasn't quite up to snuff for Wikipedia. I even replaced the image with a blank image so others couldn't misuse the image for nefarious or purient purposes. TBeatty reverted this blank image to the penis image, and then asked for {help} to change it back. He obviously had concerns over the image and I believed called it a 'wrondoing' so I thought it important to let him know the history. link link 2) Absurd - Hinnen used Nazi references several times, even alluding 'An Inconvenient Truth' as Nazi propganda, but I can't comment on that? But you get to have a userbox about Stalinesque leftists? LOL! 3) Hinnen was back with the Nazi comparisons, I commented. BFD. 4) Sarcastic humor - nothing more. 5) WP NPA + CIVIL, but he admitted he put this world famous guitarist up for AFD by mistake. This is a legit WP violation however.6) I stopped AGF with Hinnen on 1/16 based on his dishonest actions and claims, and admission that he was part of the Hinnen puppet platoon. ALLOWED and mitigating under AGF up until 2/17. I admit to many NPA, CIVIL etc 'violations' with all the members of the Hinnen sock puppet army, just like numerous other admins would when dealing with CPlot trolls. - FaAfA (yap) 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

You are deep in denial. Fred Bauder 16:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply :(with all due respect) As are you if you a) think your leftist/Stalin userbox is anything other than entirely inappropriate for a senior Admin / Arbitrator b) you think that anyone who compares your comments, rulings, cites in this RFAr vs the same in your fellow conservative MONGO'S RFAr [182] won't see that you are unable or unwilling to leave your political partisanship at the door. (read it again last night) - FaAfA (yap) 19:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't follow this. For a start, I am no conservative, and what does MONGO have to do with this? Fred Bauder 20:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
What's the deal with all the conservative Wikipedians denying their political stripes lately? Did bush tarnish the word conservative so badly that people won't even cop to it anymore? Not a conservative eh? So what are you now ? Card carrying RCP member? Chavezista? Listen Fred, we'll welcome you over to the liberal side of the political spectrum, but we'll have to verify your 'conversion' first. We don't want any faux liberals who are claiming our great mantle just cause bush has sullied the word 'conservative' so badly that it might take a generation before it loses its skunk-like stench! As for MONGO's RFAr and your part - look at the bright side - your saying 'excessive zeal' lives on forever in the Wiki Lexicon - in the Creative Weaselisms section! ;-) - FaAfA (yap) 03:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply : to Tbeatty. Fred Bauers's provocative and belligerent Leftists=Stalin userbox broadcasts his personal views and an offensive ad hominem attack 24/7/365. I only do so when I type. - FaAfA (yap) 04:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply


Comment by others:
Support he added this after your proposal. -- Tbeatty 18:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, I think that's a fair finding. FAAFA is abrasive, opinionated, has a sense of humour which is often not appreciated, and lacks the self-control to keep these issues out of article space. Some kind of parole is undoubtedly merited. Guy ( Help!) 14:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I think the exchange above typifies what it is like trying to achieve consensus about articles with this editor as it always degrades into personal views and ad hominem comments. No one really cares whether FAAFA or anyone else is a 'Chavezista' or RCP member or Neocon or whatever. Just as long as he follows the rules of civility which he doesn't seem to grasp. -- Tbeatty 03:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Couldn't agree more. Guy ( Help!) 14:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I just wish he would decide that he can do more good with research than with derision. And you know, you can let somebody know you think they are a contemptible bozo in a quite civil way, though it is true that sometimes such people are too stupid or monomaniacal to realize you have called them a bozo, everybody else gets it, and that makes it even MORE funny. -- BenBurch 15:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

DeanHinnen is not a sockpuppet

1) DeanHinnen is not a sockpuppet.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. I e-mailed this to Newyorkbrad and he has instructed me to add this proposal, with the statement that any admin with a question about this can contact Newyorkbrad. Dino 19:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose - Flies in the face of everything we have learned about him during this process. -- BenBurch 19:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Confirming that I authorized Dino to add the proposal to this page (he had previously promised not to edit this page further without checking). No comment on the merits. Newyorkbrad 19:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose. See statements above. Same disruption, same claims to be a member of the legal team, same IP address. Sockpuppet or meatpuppet? Irrelevant, per previous ArbCom rulings. Guy ( Help!) 23:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Wait, don't you mean irrelevant, as opposed to relevant? Picaroon 00:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose. This is not the prevailing opinion. Picaroon 00:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Free Republic activism

1) [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1549132/posts "Action Alert: Freep Wikipedia" Dec 30 2005], [www.freerepublic.com/~bryan/ Info on Bryan, Free Republic], [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795382/posts post by Bryan about Wikipedia] [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795382/posts?q=1&&page=1 first 50 responses], [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795382/posts?q=1&&page=51 51-100], [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795382/posts?q=1&&page=101 101-150], [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795382/posts?q=1&&page=151 151-]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Note Fred Bauder 05:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Editing history of Free Republic

1) Free Republic as of August 12, 2006. At this stage the article contained a great deal of material apparently added by users familiar with the site, see editing by Lawyer2b ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a skillful editor with a conservative point of view who removes most information in the section "Allegations Of extremism and bigotry" on the basis that it is unsourced: [183], [184], [185], [186], [187]. [188]. Following removal of a number of unsourced observations JamesMLane ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adds a reasonable source [189]. Tbeatty ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removes original research [190]. A close question "freeptard defined", "freeptard" removed by RWR8189 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Original research by Professor Ninja ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), removal by RWR8189. A contentious issue, removed as violation of BLP! by Tbeatty. External links removed by JBKramer ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). "Writing for the enemy" by BenBurch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [191].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Looking into this Fred Bauder 15:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
It is my understanding that that "members of free republic" are living persons and as such are covered by BLP policies requiring rigid sourcing by reliable third party sources when negative information is being presented about them. Is that not accurate? -- Tbeatty 21:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, BLP applies to mention of people in other articles even when they are not the main subject. To me, a lot of this amounts to saying "Free Republic is bad because some of its members are bad" which, if you actually came out and said it, would be an obvious soapbox and guilt by association problem. Cloaking it in careful language does not address the underlying problem. Thatcher131 21:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
If the actions of any group's members are so notable that the MSM writes about them, it's inclusionable. The article on DU has documentation of the DU nut who suggested that the Indonesian Tsunami might have been a secret US Gov weapon, and mean-spirited comments about Laura Ingrahm (who had breast cancer) and Reagan after his death - BECAUSE the press documented them.. I know of NO article on any political group that does not have criticism, and criticism of individual members if they did something picked up by the MSM. I even added the qualifiers "handful' and 'small minority' of members making death threats. - FaAfA (yap) 22:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree with Thatcher up to a point: it is fair to say that FR is bad if some of its members are bad and they use FR to say bad things and FR does nothing about it, which is the point at issue. Guy ( Help!) 14:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The issue is always who says it's bad. There certainly is legitimate criticism of Free Republic and I'd postulate that none of it is derived from the site itself. It must be a reliable third party source. Inferring it's bad through guilt by association is not acceptable. Inferring it's bad by highlighting a post at a message board appears bad is not acceptable. Concluding it's bad because of the action or inaction of the board operator is simply not a valid measure. Your standard of "bad" is irrelevant because it should never come to that. Wikipedia should not be used as a soapbox to highlight "bad" posts or quotes or other trivialities in order to advance a point of view. -- Tbeatty 14:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Original research

1) Free Republic has contained material which has no other source than posts on Free Republic:

Free Republic is often accused of being extremist and far-right. Even popular conservative talk show host Sean Hannity has described the site as "fringe". [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1344622/posts]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Note Fred Bauder 17:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
But is citing a message board posting in an article about that message board always OR? Even if it is used to establish things like the site's rules? Or mission statement? I think if we held strictly to that standard, we would have to purge most of the web sites currently covered. And if we are going to do that, let's do that across the board. and treat web site article about artichokes.com the same as those about hot button issues. This is a serious question on my part. Honestly I think that we should just make a rule that all web site articles should redirect to the open directory project entry, and be quit of this sort of foolishness. -- BenBurch 18:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Use of links to information which is not controversial such as their guidelines should be Ok. Analysis of whether they follow those guidelines would need to be from a third party, see this righteous edit. Fred Bauder 20:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Read the archives - I'll find the links. Bryan was arguing FOR inclusion of JimRob's statements about homosexuality, evolution, etc. This was also discussed at length during mediation - If JimRob's views speak for Free Republic as a whole or not. What's ironic is that several people involved in this RFAr are doing EXACTLY what they accuse Ben and I of doing - cherry-picking to portray something or somone as negatively as possible. (in this case Ben and my efforts on the article) Why don't you get more input from Jossi who directed the mediation - ask him to weigh in on whether or not Ben and I were looking for positive material to put in the article, and that's EXACTLY what I did, to help balance out any criticism. link - FaAfA (yap) 21:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
We have good reason to focus on controversial articles. Wikipedia:Verifiability is not an afterthought; it is fundamental policy, as is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a battleground for political struggle. What we need is a sober, conservatively written summary of verifiable information from reliable sources. What, for example, do political scientists have to say about Free Republic? Fred Bauder 20:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Please read archive 3 and archive 4 we were all working with Admin Jossi to determine what was OR, and what wasn't. You might also note that during this time frame, RWR1989 added content to the Democratic Underground article regarding them being contacted by the Secret Service, and this info was ONLY published on DU at the time, by the head moderator/ owner. The WP justification was 'DU is an expert on DU'- FaAfA (yap) 21:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
How good is the sourcing for Democratic Underground (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? We could apply the same remedy to it as I propose for Free Republic, article probation. Fred Bauder 01:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Please see this DU article discussion re the secret service where several editors active on the FR article were insisting that referencing the site owners comments about the secret service was NOT OR cause he's a RS on DU. Secret Service debate I actually gave up rather than fight them ! - FaAfA (yap) 02:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Essentially it is a use of anecdotal evidence to draw an inappropriate conclusion, original research. Almost all the references in the criticism section of Democratic Underground article serve that function. Publication of an anecdote in the Wall Street Journal does not change its essential nature. Fred Bauder 05:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

And look how the FR supporters titled that section : 'Death threats against government officials' diff Did they include the part of the DU policy that warns "In the case of the president, do not even post jokes, as the Secret Service is not known for its sense of humor."? Of course not! It MIGHT have been something as 'mild' as an highly inappropriate joke. If you saw Fahrenheit 9/11 you saw the part where they hauled in a 70+ year old man, for vehemently cussing bush out in a gym. The DU section is OR, speculation, and negative light. - FaAfA (yap) 07:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Fair statement. Guy ( Help!) 14:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

BryanFromPalatine

1) An examination of the editing of BryanFromPalatine ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shows personal attacks and vandalism (This is rather subtle, the change of link was to a now deleted attack page directed at the user, but perhaps it was just a mistake). He finds an acorn.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Just getting started Fred Bauder 20:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Community ban of User:BryanFromPalatine endorsed

1) User:BryanFromPalatine was banned by the community for tendentious editing, personal attacks, block evasion and disruption. This ban is endorsed by ArbCom.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
If you're going to seek endorsement by ArbCom at this time, BFP should be allowed to participate in his own defense. This endorsement should not be considered or given at this time because it will unnecessarily complicate an already complex proceeding. BFP is already the subject of an indefinite block. If he ever wants to come back, he can seek to be unblocked through the usual channels. Dino 20:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary. It's a review of the process, not the ban itself. Guy ( Help!) 22:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You wrote it this way: "This BAN is endorsed by ArbCom." Therefore it's a review of the ban. Dino 23:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
No, it's an endorsement of the ban, which means a review of the process. Please stop splashing bold red text everywhere. Guy ( Help!) 21:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I think there was a sale on red electrons recently at Radio Shack -- BenBurch 05:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy ( Help!) 20:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Picaroon 20:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Clerk note:
User:BryanFromPalatine has been notified of the arbitration. He may submit evidence by e-mail to an active arbitrator or arbitration clerk, who will post it or e-mail it to all arbitrators via the ArbCom mailing list. Newyorkbrad 18:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
A notice on his Talk page isn't going to do it. He hasn't even looked at Wikipedia in about three weeks. I'll contact him, but I doubt that he'll be interested. Dino 18:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

User:Fairness And Accuracy For All/ User:NBGPWS is a banned from political articles

Fairness And Accuracy For All ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)/ NBGPWS ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a banned from political articles, talkpages, and other Wikipedia venues such as AfD, XfD's etc. This includes biographical articles of political figures such as politicians and political activists.


Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I disagree with this. Perhaps a ban for a period of a couple of months from the Free Republic article, and a requirement that he not belittle other editors no matter how much they may appear to deserve it. Mock politeness, even obvious mock politeness, can still be used to get a message across in a more civil manner, and I know he can rise to that occasion. He is a valuable editor of political articles. -- BenBurch 04:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Disagree, Tbeatty has been involved in warring with FAAFA, so there really is no surprise that they would seek to remove the alternate POV. Further as noted below, "political" is horribly broad. -- Nuclear Zer0 17:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed Tbeatty 02:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Political articles is a braod terminology as even many feel the artilces related to 9/11 are political and FAAFA/NBGPWS has been active there as well.-- MONGO 05:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Parole would be better. I'd endorse that no problem. Guy ( Help!) 12:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Fairness And Accuracy For All ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)/ NBGPWS ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia indefinitely

Fairness And Accuracy For All ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)/ NBGPWS ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned from contributing to Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I disagree with this, I do not feel what FAAFA has done warrants a permanent sitewide ban. Prodego talk 03:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
What Prodego said; ditto. -- BenBurch 05:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This man's User Talk pages and their archives, in his current guise and his previous guise as NBGPWS, are wallpapered with warnings about his incivility and edit warring. He will never stop completely. He will tone it down for a while until he thinks he can get away with it again. A permanent ban is the only effective solution. If you get rid of me, he will just pick a new victim and BB will be right there with him using gang tactics.
This. Must. Stop. Forever. Dino 16:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed Tbeatty 01:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
No thanks. I find him tiresome and vexatious, but despite numerous discussions on the admin noticeboards over the months I don't see an indefinite ban as justified. Guy ( Help!) 15:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Unjustified. He may be a bit too sharp at times, but I has shown he is capable to edit collaboratively (at least during the informal mediation). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Disagreed. While not the best behavior, attempting to use Arbcom to remove those with differing political opinions is overboard. Anyway arguing on one article normally warrants an article band or probation, surely not a sitewide ban. -- Nuclear Zer0 17:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
He's been Wikistalking me from article to article, starting a content dispute everywhere I go. That merits a sitewide ban, gentlemen. See WP:STALK. Dino 15:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comprehensive remedy for the conduct of User:DeanHinnen

1) Whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen to be banned from editing Wikipedia (main article space) for a period of three months, following which he or she is on probation to be civil in all of his or her dealings, to obey the rule of WP:1RR, to not post on the talk pages of either User:BenBurch or User:Fairness And Accuracy For All, and to make no reference whatsoever to legal consequences of editing decisions for life. Where he or she has valid concerns in that sphere, an ArbCom admin shall be appointed a "Special Master" for purposes of hearing his or her concerns and acting upon them if in the Special Master's sole judgement there is cause to act for the protection of Wikipedia. He or she shall also have this probation revoked should he or she use a sock puppet for any purpose whatsoever. -- BenBurch 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. -- BenBurch 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
WP:1RR is not a "rule", nor is it a policy or even a guideline. It is an essay. -- rogerd 17:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It is, however, a valid sanction proposed in ArbCom cases. Guy ( Help!) 19:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Just the sense in which I meant this. I should note that I now think this proposal is insufficient. -- BenBurch 15:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Comprehensive remedy for the conduct of User:Fairness And Accuracy For All

1) User:Fairness And Accuracy For All to be banned from editing Free Republic or its talk page for a period of three months, following which he is on probation to be civil in all of his dealings, to not post on the talk page of whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen, and to obey the rule of WP:2RR for a period of one year.-- BenBurch 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. -- BenBurch 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This man's User Talk pages and their archives, in his current guise and his previous guise as NBGPWS, are wallpapered with warnings about his incivility and edit warring. He will never stop completely. He will tone it down for a while until he thinks he can get away with it again. A permanent ban is the only effective solution. If you get rid of me, he will just pick a new victim and BB will be right there with him using gang tactics.
This. Must. Stop. Forever. Dino 16:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
I disagree. It should be stiffer than that. He has many blocks and a previous RfC on his bahavior. Even his behavior at this arbitration are atrocious. -- Tbeatty 05:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Addressed by prohibition to be civil. After a year of editing with civility, he will have made a habit of it (as will I.) -- BenBurch 05:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Civility is a principle that he has already been warned about. It is expected of editors, not a punishment. The next escalation is block or ban or other sanction. Have him demonstrate his civility in an area of wikipedia that is less contentious than political articles for 1 year. -- Tbeatty 05:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I could agree with three months off Political articles. A year is far, far too long. -- BenBurch 05:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
No. An article ban might be justified, standard civility parole would be unproblematic, but we have to have a really good reason for preventing people from even commenting on a talk page, for example to point out errors of fact. Guy ( Help!) 15:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
So amended. -- BenBurch 16:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comprehensive remedy for the conduct of User:BenBurch

1) User:BenBurch to be banned from editing Free Republic or its talk page for a period of three months, following which he is on probation to be civil in all of his dealings, to not post on the talk page of whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen, and to obey the rule of WP:2RR for a period of one year.-- BenBurch 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Amended as per discussion above. -- BenBurch 16:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. -- BenBurch 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This man's User Talk page and its carefully concealed archives are wallpapered with warnings about his incivility and edit warring. He will never stop completely. He will tone it down for a while until he thinks he can get away with it again. A permanent ban is the only effective solution. If you get rid of me, he will just pick a new victim and FAAFA will be right there with him using gang tactics.
This. Must. Stop. Forever. Dino 16:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
How the hell could I conceal, carefully or otherwise, the edit history of my user talk page? Sorry, my friend, but you are grasping at straws here. And;
Can. You. Sound. More. Like. William. Shatner. Please? -- BenBurch 19:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
How the hell could I conceal, carefully or otherwise, the edit history of my user talk page?
That's easy. You create two pages of archives and then, when you realize they support you in the same way a hangman's rope supports a condemned criminal, you delete the links to them. This forces others to invest a lot of effort into either finding the pages or reconstructing them.
Can. You. Sound. More. Like. William. Shatner. Please?
Yes, there's some more of that relentless mockery that you and your friend can't live without. No, I'm not taking the bait. Stop shoving it into my face. Dino 18:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Relentless mockery? Sheesh. Tough room. You appear to construe every minor attempt at having a sense of humor about this as some sort of attack. Which I think is MUCH of the problem most of us have with you. -- BenBurch 16:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I've had a chance to review the relentless mockery of my brother by you and your friend. You gleefully baited him into self-destruction. After that, it would be foolish to believe for a moment that I'd ever find any humor in anything the two of you have to say. The moment I started using words like "mockery," "ridicule" and "baiting" to describe what you are trying to pass off as humor, you should have understood the message loud and clear: You're not funny. But you still persist. Dino 20:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Dino, drop the stick and step away from the horse. Of the three of you (four if you count Bryan), BenBurch is, I think, the only one whose edit history holds up to any kind of scrutiny, and he's also the most ready to accept critique, compromise and resolution. He is also the only one who shows much capacity for self-criticism. Guy ( Help!) 12:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
I'm impressed by Ben's attempts to acknowledge and, in fact, make up, for his past mistakes - could you try doing the same, Dean? However, I'm just not liking the wording of this proposal, and can't put my finger on why. Picaroon 00:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. Ben used poor judgment is hitching his star to Faafa and focusing WAY to much attention to the disruptive antics of Dean (to the point of vendetta), but I feel that Bens behavior may actually have been in earnest to improve the project despite the fact that things got out of control. Things got out of control but I DO detect sincerity from Ben and I doubt things will ever rise again to this level. Civility probation and 2RR are certainly sufficient. Dman727 07:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply

User:Fairness And Accuracy For All/ User:NBGPWS is banned from Wikipedia

1) User:Fairness And Accuracy For All/ User:NBGPWS is banned from Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. This man has been here for a long time and he just keeps getting warnings that he ignores and 24-hour blocks that he waits out. A permanent solution is the only solution. Dino 16:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Oppose. Parole should be sufficient. Guy ( Help!) 14:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
See my comments above regarding Tbeatty's virtually identical proposal, sir. Dino 15:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply

User:BenBurch is banned from Wikipedia

1) User:BenBurch is banned from Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. This man has been here for a long time and he just keeps getting warnings that he ignores and 24-hour blocks that he waits out. A permanent solution is the only solution. Dino 16:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I see you favor only final solutions. It is good for you that nobody on "my" side of this process has proposed the same against you. Or do you seek to motivate such a proposal? In any case I have said that I don't care if I am blocked or banned. Dealing with you has made this project zero fun for me, and I suspect for others as well. I won't spend my time on an activity that I no longer find rewarding. I am only here because several editors and administrators asked me nicely to rescind my retirement from Wikipedia and see this process though. In any case, I do expect that if you continue to be combative, uncivil, and vexatious here in this proceeding, that you will wind up being locked out of editing no matter what I propose. I can only wonder at why you choose to be in this venue with anything less than a fully cooperative, civil, and apologetic frame of mind. -- BenBurch 16:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I've repeatedly stated that I accept responsibility and apologized for my part in this. [192] [193] But I have been called a "paragon of civility" and despite the damage I've been relentlessly baited into doing to that reputation, I hope that I can repair it after you and FAAFA are gone. Your history here is long and turbulent. His is just about as long, and even more turbulent. I've been here exactly one month and (with the exception of the first extremely civil hour or two) I spent the first ten days permablocked, and developing my reputation as a paragon of civility at Unblock-en-l. For all practical purposes, I've been here three weeks. As a newbie, I hope that I can be given another chance.
But as veteran Wikipedia POV warriors, a final solution for you and your friend appears to be the only solution. If I saw any sign that a less draconian remedy would work, I would certainly be open to the idea. But there is no such sign. Dino 17:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You were called a paragon of civility by members of en-unblock-l one of whom later wrote the following about you;
So, what happened to your promise to en-unblock-l, eh? -- BenBurch 18:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Here's what happened to my promise, Ben: "I can think of no other way to force him to get the attention of enough admins to finally get one of them to deal with him." [194] You've admitted that you and your friend engaged in a campaign of baiting and badgering, for the purpose of baiting me into incivility. It's a signed confession, sir. And with all the aggravating circumstances — your lengthy and turbulent past histories at Protest Warrior and elsewhere, your previous gleeful baiting campaign against BFP, your Wikistalking, your gang tactics and your use of abysmally bad sourcing to smear conservative organizations and politicians, in violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight — all indications point to the final solution I've proposed.
It's unfortunate. Both of you are clearly very bright. You could have been real assets to this project. But in my opinion, you have consistently chosen to use these gifts to pursue a political agenda and to bait anyone who gets in your way into self-destruction. The project will be much better off without you. Your gifts and the way you employ them may be more useful at Dkosopedia, since they produce the same high-RPM left-wing spin that you can't seem to live without. In fact, I'd be surprised if you aren't already contributing there on a regular basis. Dino 14:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If they are very bright then you are very foolish. Nobody forced you to rise to the bait. Especially, noboidy forced you to start from a position of having already risen to the bait. Guy ( Help!) 12:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Grossly excessive. Of the three main parties, BenBurch is the only one I'd give a rat's ass about losing fomr the project. Guy ( Help!) 12:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
BenBurch openly acknowledged that he engaged in Wikistalking for the purpose of baiting me into a confrontation. Examples of previous Wikistalking remedies provided by ArbCom, as described in WP:STALK, indicate that a permanent ban isn't even slightly excessive, sir. Dino 20:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
And you openly acknowledge conflict of interest editing, tendentious editing, original research. The difference is, BenBurch shows signs of contrition. You have shown no signs of anythign other than arrogance, aggression and hubris. Guy ( Help!) 23:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You continue to misrepresent and distort the evidence, sir. I've voluntarily stopped editing Free Republic. I edited that article once on January 15 when Carolyn Doran's removal of libelous material was reverted, and I haven't edited that article since; while BenBurch and FAAFA, despite their obvious COI problems, continued to edit the article and defend poorly sourced negative information that they added to the article. Also, I've repeatedly stated that I accept responsibility and apologized for my part in this, sir. [195] [196] These two diffs were posted in this section eight days ago, but you continue to ignore them and claim that I "show no signs of anything other than arrogance, aggression and hubris." Dino 00:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
No, Dino, I continue to disagree with you on interpretation of the evidence (and from the basis of a lot more experience of Wikipedia). The fact that you feel the need to portray this in terms like "misrepresent" and "distort the evidence" is unquestionably a large part of the problem, since it is not only incivil, it actively hampers any attempt to resolve the dispute. Conflict of interest here is clearly present in your case. BenBurch and FAAFA disagree with Free Republic's politics, that does not constitute a conflict of interest. Guy ( Help!) 17:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
No, Dino, I continue to disagree with you on interpretation of the evidence (and from the basis of a lot more experience of Wikipedia).
I've been interpreting evidence, and watching opponents distort, destroy and conceal it, for nearly 30 years on matters of much greater gravity, sir. And please don't try to claim any special expertise. Statements were made, and they were recorded. These are identical to any other recorded statement, and susceptible to the same analysis I have used throughout my career. Try to remember what I do for a living, when I'm not here trying to correct for the relentless left-wing spin. Dino 14:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
And that is the core of our problem with you. You seem to think this is one of those other matters you get paid to litigate. You have obsessively edited this page for over a week now. I don't think you have spent five minutes away from editing this thing in that time. God only knows what your employer thinks you are doing with your time! And worse you are in a system that is 90 degrees away from the system you are used to, but are still dealing with matters as though there were a judge, rules of evidence, and an expectation that outcomes come from evidence that does not really exists here. Here your ATTITUDE matters a hell of a lot more than the letter of the law or what you did over a year ago. Your attitude SUCKS. I'd love to have you here as an editor (only one copy of you though) if you could just understand that we are not litigating patents here, we are writing an encyclopedia. -- BenBurch 15:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Very excessive. While Ben's hands are hardly clean in this matter, it seems that it was the misbehavior of Dean and Faafa that brought things beyond the point of reason and Ben "came along for the ride". Among the three, Ben is the only one who has shown the ability to take corrective action based up constructive critisism. If it were not for Dean/Faafa unrepentent escalation of this issue, any concerns of Bens behavior would have been long dealt with via the normal admin process's. Dman727 07:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Along with Guy, I find BenBurch to be the most nearly reasonable of the three main parties. He might be reformable and remedies can be fashioned in a way that would lead to sitebanning if that hope proves to be misplaced. Durova Charge! 20:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

User:Fairness And Accuracy For All/ User:NBGPWS is placed on civility parole indefinitely

1) User:Fairness And Accuracy For All is placed on civility parole indefinitely. Blocks to be administered by any administrator not involved in a content dispute with him.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed.-- MONGO 06:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Sounds good to me - maybe with the option of review after a year of good behavior? Picaroon 20:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:CIVIL is policy, so since there has already been repeated violations of this and repeated blocks, some people might see that as sufficient to simply ban him indefinitely. The proposal I posted is what I think is more than fair. He could always ask for clarification at anytime in the future.-- MONGO 06:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Works for me. One year or indefinite, not really bothered which. Guy ( Help!) 09:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. All involved users need to be put on parole for NPA and breaches of WP:CIVIL ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support -- rogerd 13:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply

User:Fairness And Accuracy For All/ User:NBGPWS is banned from editing political articles for 6 months

1) User:Fairness And Accuracy For All is banned from editing political articles for 6 months. This includes talk pages of political articles.

or

1a) User:Fairness And Accuracy For All is placed on parole for 6 months and may be banned from any article or Talk page he disrupts, such bans to be discussed at the community notieceboard.

or

1b) User:Fairness And Accuracy For All/ User:NBGPWS is banned from editing political articles for 6 months excluding talk pages where he may raise issues in a civil manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed.-- MONGO 06:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't like this, despite my distaste for FAAFA's style, because it prevents him notifying problems on Talk. I'd say a topical ban may be justified but it could be along the lines of "may be banned from any article he disrupts", so if he is able to engage in civil discourse we don't need to take action. I therefore propose 1a instead. Guy ( Help!) 12:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I proposed 1b to adress the talk page concern vs. parole. Civility is already expected behavior. Civility has already been a problem. I block or ban for a period of time is called for as the next step. -- Tbeatty 02:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
1a or 1b would be acceptable to me (if that matters). The reason for suggesting 1a is that the definition of a political article is somewhat wide, and if he does not disrupt an article there is no particular reason he shouldn't edit it (minor fact checking, adding citations, that kind of thing). I'm strongly in favour of a zero-tolerance approach on disruption for FAAFA going forward. I don't see him as irredeemable but his behaviour has, in my view, been an issue for a long time. This is better than a blanket ban which might then lead to immediate problems of interpretation. A liberal interpretation of disruption can certainly be applied. Guy ( Help!) 09:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I too think option 1 goes too far. 1b would be good, 1a is also fine. (My view of FAAFA has changed in the last day or two.) CWC (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support -- rogerd 13:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply

User:DeanHinnen is placed on 1RR parole for six months

1) User:DeanHinnen is placed on 1RR parole for six months. He may be blocked by any administrator not involved in a content dispute with him if he violates 1RR for the six months after the closing of this proceeding.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Endorsed -- BenBurch 20:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed.-- MONGO 06:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
For clarification: you mean one revert per day, right? Picaroon 20:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, 1RR is one revert...so an edit and one revert back to that edit is 1RR...two reverts back to an edit is 2RR and would be a violation. This wouldn't mean a revert of obvious vandalism of course.-- MONGO 06:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Standard revert parole, reasonably uncontroversial. Guy ( Help!) 12:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes. 1RR parole is warranted for all parties in this case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

User:DeanHinnen may not make legal threats either directly or implied

1) User:DeanHinnen may not make legal threats either directly or implied. Further legal threats by DeanHinnen may result in an indefinite block.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Endorse -- BenBurch 20:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed.-- MONGO 06:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. This will go a long way in heading off further talk page confrontations. Picaroon 20:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Interpretation should be liberal, as per the usual wording. Dean's judgement about how threatening his words are is clearly not in line with community norms, we need to be explicit that it is not his call whether or not a statementis an implied threat, implied threats should be withdrawn immediately and without demur. Guy ( Help!) 12:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Durova Charge! 02:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

NOTE: "Dean Hinnen" made a legal threat in an e-mail to American Politics Journal. His e-mail -- and our reply -- can be read here. Apj-us-nyc 19:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Endorse -- rogerd 13:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Article probation

1) The article Free Republic (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is placed on article probation indefinitely, starting at the close of this arbitration case.

Free Republic placed on article probation

Free Republic (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is placed on article probation. It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Accepted with alternative language. Fred Bauder 18:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
I gladly agree to this - and withdraw from the article entirely if the article includes sourced criticism at time of probation - and Admins agree to keep a close eye on it . - FAAFA 03:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. This'll make it much easier for Durova, Jossi, Jzg, Prodego, myself, and any other admins intent on keeping the peace to actually keep the peace. Committee members, may, of course, make a motion to change the length of time as they see fit after the close of the case, if this remedy and its current length of time is endorsed; alternately, anyone can make suggestions about the proposed duration of probation right here and now. Picaroon 20:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This is certainly an attractive proposal. Guy ( Help!) 12:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. Although I don't see why it needs to be longer than one year. Article probation is certainly fitting. 02:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)—the preceding comment is by Durova ( talk • contribs)

1RR and civility probation

Fairness And Accuracy For All ( talk · contribs)/ NBGPWS ( talk · contribs), DeanHinnen ( talk · contribs), BryanFromPalatine ( talk · contribs), and BenBurch ( talk · contribs), are placed on 1RR and civility probation indefinitely for all political-related articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. Couldn't possibly be harmful, and will most likely help a lot. Picaroon 23:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. -- Tbeatty 06:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

User:DeanHinnen banned from Wikipedia

1) User:DeanHinnen and any future sock puppet that may reasonably associated with him to be blocked from editing Wikipedia except for his own user talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed - The threats against APJ have been the last straw for me. And just look at how he has comported himself with others on other articles in the last week or so. Ban me too if you have to, but he has to go. -- BenBurch 18:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply to TBeatty: APJ is where the Death Threats article that Dino claimed was plagiarized and/or didn't exist was published. Dino directed one of his 'signature' legal threats at them yesterday (?). They didn't seem to take as kindly to that as Wiki seems to, nor did they seem to appreciate Dino's repeated claims that APJ had slandered and libeled Free Republic. There's a whole article on 'Dino's' actions there! (link coming) Good reading! (yeah Hinnen - links are TOUGH - HTML too - especially for people who work for an ONLINE ONLY publication ! LOL ) - FaAfA (yap) 01:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
What does APJ have to do with Wikipedia? -- Tbeatty 19:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I was about to ask the same question. NLT protects Wikipedia and its members, not anyone else. I also find it amazing that a "new member" found his way to the Evidence and Workshop pages and knew how to merge a link into his text in his first six edits. The efforts by the left to sway the judgment of this Committee are really getting desperate. Dino 19:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Bry... er, Dino wrote: "I also find it amazing that a 'new member' found his way to the Evidence and Workshop pages and knew how to merge a link into his text in his first six edits."
Golly, Bry... er, Dino, I find it amazing that you haven't figured out that someone with over a decade's experience mastering HTML, PHP, Perl, CSS and, more recently, Ruby (not to mention many more) can pick up on the nuances of posting to Wikipedia after "click[ing] on Editing Help" and reading the instructions. Linking to the relevant pages was a lead-pipe cinch with one simple keyword search on A9 ('cause Google is, you know, so last Thursday). Now what was that I was saying about " Occam's Razor," Br... er, Dino? -- Apj-us-nyc 16:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose - I am not convinced he is a sockpuppet, and DeanHinnen's conduct doesn't warrant this sanction -- rogerd 13:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose - I am not convinced he is a sockpuppet either, his tactics may be questionable but I see most of it as being brought on by constant baiting by the other two. Excessive punishment, too quickly agreed on by the obvious clan members who oppose him. Mobile 01 Talk 00:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply

DeanHinnen

1) DeanHinnen is banned indefinitely from editing Free Republic and associated articles. He may comment on the talk pages of the articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Not sure if comments on talk pages are going to work. Fred Bauder 22:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
It's been his style of commenting, which includes veiled legal threats and a few personal attacks, that is his most disruptive trait. Second are the various things (RFC's, RFCU's, SSP's, and AN/I complaints) he's filed against FAAFA and BenBurch, and last are his occasional article edits. I'd say banning him from Talk:Free Republic would be the most helpful thing short of banning him outright. Picaroon 22:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I have ceased believing that he is separate from Bryan. As such, he is already banned, and the ban should be enforced. Note that although Bryan has been banned for some time, he has continually returned as a sockpuppet - if Dean is not a sockpuppet he is clearly a meatpuppet. Give him the bum's rush, I say. Neither he nor FAAFA would be any loss, both have caused far more dissent than can be justified by the merits of their contributions. Also, this fails to address the issue of Dean's tendentious editing of other subjects. Guy ( Help!) 16:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
  • Oppose as insufficient per JzG. His most recent conduct shows conclusively that he ought not be editing anything here anywhere. -- BenBurch 15:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Insufficient. Hinnen is a ban-evading sock or meatpuppet. Indefinite bock per existing ban, please. Guy ( Help!) 14:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Fairness And Accuracy For All banned

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 01:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Oppose - Really excessive. -- BenBurch 17:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
In the case of User:RPJ, who had spent over a year attacking other users in a one-sided barrage of personal abuse and inserting repeated blatant NPOV violations into articles against an otherwise unanimous consensus, the ArbCom banned him for one year. While FAAFA's conduct has been far from exempliary, his offenses don't come near the level of RPJ's abuse, and to mete out the same level of punishment seems terribly excessive. Additionally, this has hardly been a one-sided conflict. Abuse has been dealt out from all sides, so the punishment should be dealt out appropriately, not to one player in this conflict. I suggest parole, mentorship, or the banning from particular articles, but a lengthy, blanket ban like this is too much. Gamaliel 21:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This will most likely be the "middle" remedy. It looks to me like an indefinite ban for BFP and/or Dean. This 1 year ban for FAAFA. And lesser or no action against BenBurch. As such I think it is fair. FAAFA has disrupted numerous articles and attacked numerous editors and been the subject of numerous administrative actions. Far more extensive than RPJ but he has offset them with more valuable contributions than RPJ which is why the community has not banned him. Of the three persons involved in this ArbCom, FAAFA has the longest history of disruption. It would be grossly disproportionate to treat FAAFA the same as BenBurch. Likewise it would just as disproportionate to treat Dean/Bryan significantly different from FAAFA. -- Tbeatty 00:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I would disagree with that assessment. This ArbCom case is degenerating into a free for all political dispute in which people are trying to get their opponents banned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
TBeatty wants to see me gone as I am 'on' to his intentional misuse of BLP, misconduct so egregious that Jimbo Wales personally commented on it, and a practice that he is still resorting to on a regular basis. I told him that I would address this at some point. Look here where he deleted whole swathes of talk page comments, which could have been edited for 'tone', nothing more. Tbaetty's wholesale deletions Yesterday! Did he leave a 'placeholder' as WP indicates that editors should when they delete or change comments? Of course not. If Tbeatty reads something he doesn't like, he often just deletes it, and claims BLP. He created a bogus Jim Robinson (Free Republic) page and redirected it to Free Republic page during heated arguments over that article and whether or not Jim Robinson was being defamed - a page whose only use would be as a ploy to apply BLP to the whole article - something he tried unsuccesfully on the Protest Warrior article. This calculated misuse of BLP by Tbeatty is much more serious an issue than my big mouth - and I didn't see these same editors complaining about MONGO's big mouth in his and Seabchan's RFAr, but defending it. Don't be fooled by some who claim this 'isn't about poltics'. It's all about politics - and they don't like mine. - FaAfA (yap) 01:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The problem Tbeatty, is that you intentionally and selectively apply or ignore BLP for purely partisan political purposes. Like when you defamed Clinton as responsible for numerous political murders, and when you stated that 9/11 Prof Steven Jones got fired for 'lying' and Jimbo himself excoriated you, writing that people who do things like you did : "have no business editing wikipedia at all." and "The first comment was bad enough. But to come up with a "source" which does not back up the claim *at all*, and to continue to make the claim, is just so far beyond unacceptable..." Jimbo Wales 09:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC) blocked for BLP - FaAfA (yap) 03:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I feel that faafas/NBGPWS long term disruptive and truly unapolegetic behavior needs to be dealt with, and a ban is certainly appropriate. A year may be on the long side though... I think that 3 to 6 months is more appropriate. A 3 to 6 month wiki-break would be more than enough time for faafa to reflect on his behavior and if he returns, take actions to correct it. Anything less and Faafa/NBGPWS will simply offer yet another unsincere appology and then return right away to the behavior which brought him/her here. In any event, the disruptive actions of Ben, Dean and Faafaa are hardly equal. Dean being by far the most serious disrupter and Ben being least..which leaves faafa square in the middle of severity of misconduct. The consequences rendered should be in porportion to the misbehavior and to treat all 3 equally wouldnt be fair to anyone. Dman727 02:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • New comments: I encourage the Arbitrators to look at Dman's own contributions and interpetation of WP, OR, and negative light on the DU 'Secret Service' issue >>link<< where he intentionally exagerated a 'possible' threat that was not even stated to be against bush (maybe cheney?) and might even have been a 'joke' - writing things like "But frankly I do think that death threats against the president ARE notable when they are made on a forum founded on the [hate] of Bush and [hate] of Bush is a common requirement for continuing membership. " ( he refactored 'hate' to 'love' after I complained about his defamation ! ) Then they basically DROVE me off the talk page with their 'gang tactics', insistant misinterperation of WP and OR. I'm no angel - but WHO was correct about OR and self-published sources - according to Fred's comments about posts from FR being OR? - FaAfA (yap) 08:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I interpeted the secret service/DU issue back in December as I saw it using [ [197]]. If that interpetation (or any of my interpetations about anything) are wrong, then I trust the wiki community will set things straight (and they usually do quite quickly :) Dman727 09:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I am MONGO's "big mouth"...I guess. I suggested above that FAAFA be placed on civility parole and on probation from political articles. Generally, there isn't much liklihood that FAAFA and I will agree on anything but as far as it goes with our interrelationships, I have no idea why I am accused here now by him of having a big mouth and yet have to eat the "cookie" FAAFA recently presented me with, though I know this was done in humor...but was it? I dunno...it rolled right off me like rain as my response at the time indicated, but it was received with much less enthusiaum by others. [198]...oh well.-- MONGO 11:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm with MONGO here (at least I think I am), a ban is more than is needed, civility parole and perhaps an article ban should be sufficient. We can soon fix it if that is not enough, plenty of admins are watching this editor by now. Guy ( Help!) 14:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm not certain whether a yearlong ban is appropriate, but civility parole and an article ban seems quite mild. Perhaps 3 months of siteban followed by article ban and civility parole? This whole conflict became a circus long ago. Things need to settle down. Durova Charge! 06:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Clarification...I proposed a civility parole and probabtion from political articles, but I actually do think a ban is the best thing. Nothing personal, but the level of disruption and the block log of FAAFA and his previous account are indicative of a problem editor.-- MONGO 12:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Does anyone doubt that civility parole will lead to either withdrawal or a ban? Maybe we should give FAAFA a chance, but his/her behaviour on this mediation doesn't give me any reason to believe he/she might be able to abide by a civility parole. TheronJ
My feeling is that FAAFA has two problems: strong political bias, with a tendency to pile in without too much thought beforehand, and a badly misjudged sense of humour. I would hope that some kind of parole may work, but it is equally possible that it would rapidly end up with a long block. Is it worth a try? Who knows. I'd say we should get rid of BryanDean first and see what happens. Maybe without that particular provocation, the issue would be de-escalated to an acceptable degree. I'm also very reluctant to give a ban-evading puppet any satisfaction in the vendetta they are clearly here first and foremost to pursue. Guy ( Help!) 14:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree with Guy - Ban FAAFA and the Hinnen Brothers (Conjoined twins) will get exactly what they set out to get. I'd say we should not give them the satisfaction for a moment. I think a lot of FAAFA's incivility in this case is simply because he (and I) are totally convinced that Dean Hinnen is a ban-evading sock puppet. And when you are dealing with that, I think AGF at least goes right out the window. -- BenBurch 14:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment' FAAFA has a much longer history of disruption than Dean/Bryan. Considering that his latest conflict appears to be with Fred Bauder, it doesn't seem like banning Bryan would have much of an efect on FAAFA other than to reinforce his behavior. He has an RFC and multiple blocks. He has been given multiple chances. Many more than Dean/Bryan. If only Dean/Bryan would have been given this kind of chance, maybe they would have been more productive. Latest (3/8/2007) use of inappropriate user page [199] -- Tbeatty 14:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Like some others here, I think that banning FAAFA for a year is too harsh. I suggest a shorter ban, a year or so of parole/probation or (probably the best) a ban followed by a parole/probation period. CWC (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply

DeanHinnen blocked indefinitely

1) DeanHinnen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is to be blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of banned user BryanFromPalatine ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Comment by Arbitrators:
Accepted Fred Bauder 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Simple as can be. He doesn't need a separate ban, seeing as events in this case have shown he is clearly a sockpuppet, just a block. And if ArbCom endorses it, no wikilawyering can unblock him. Picaroon 23:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I like it. -- BenBurch 23:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Agreed. Long since passed the point of WP:DUCK. SirFozzie 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Quack. I mean endorse. Durova Charge! 06:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Support I am unmoved by Dean claims that he is not BFP for all the obvious reasons. After this proceeding began, I find it noteworthy that while Ben became FAR more civil and Faafa continued his usual uncivil, disruptive, extremist antics, only DeanHinnen actually ESCALATED all the behavior that brought the 3 of them here in the first place. If the disruption increases DURING an Arbcon, God only knows how bad it would be after it completes if DeanHinnen were to stay. There is no chance for rehabiliation. Encourage sitewide ban. Dman727 07:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support, obviously. Guy ( Help!) 14:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, I am not convinced -- rogerd 13:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
What would convince you, roger? -- BenBurch 15:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, I am not convinced either. While I do not endorse everything Dino does, I have taken the time to look at his edits in the past few weeks. I find nothing disruptive with any of them and I feel that if left alone without harrasment from the other two editors, Dino could well be an asset to wikipedia. Frankly all 3 of them have behaved attrociously in this issue, while Ben may well have seen the light early on and stepped out of the way of the oncoming train, the other two seemed determined to run at it full bore. 1 month block for FAAFA and Dino, warning to BenBurch. Let them do their time and come back with a clean slate. I also have to disagree with the comments made by Dman727, I think FAAFA did his fair share of escalating and as an admin GUY/JzG should certainly be put under some scrutiny for his continued provocation of Dino throughout ths whole page.

I can only look at the article that Dino has edited and I find no disruptive behavior in any of them, certainly there has been heated debate on talk pages and a prolofic amount of waffle on this arbitration. However we are not making a decision to ban a user because of the way he chooses to defend himself but on the quality of his work. Whatever BryanFromPalatine did before Dino became a member seems to be irrelevant to this discussion. As BFP has not edited at any time while Dino has been a member I don't see the problem.

If Dino is indeed the brother of PFP and they have similar views, that's not surprising, if a brother comes to the defence of another that is not surprising either. Frankly this whole case has been about who said what to whom and when. Most of this is ancient history and nothing Dino has done recently is in my opinion reason to destroy him. Block for 3 months along with FAAFA, then keep an eye on them both when they return. If the crap starts again, then boot them both forever. Mobile 01 Talk 14:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Arbitration Committee endorses consensus of Unblock-en-l

1) The consensus opinion of Unblock-en-l has found that DeanHinnen is not a sockpuppet, and has made a legitimate edit of the Free Republic article, in a good faith attempt to remove libel from Wikipedia articles; that he was blocked as a result; that he showed nothing but civility during subsequent proceedings at Unblock-en-l despite the time it took; and that he has the apologies of Unblock-en-l for this block. This opinion is endorsed by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. I e-mailed this to Newyorkbrad and he has instructed me to add this proposal, with the statement that any admin with a question about this can contact Newyorkbrad. Dino 18:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Confirming that I authorized Dino to add the proposal to this page (he had previously promised not to edit this page further without checking). No comment on the merits. Newyorkbrad 19:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Bwahahahahaha. Are you serious Dino? This is the most bizarre twisting of the facts yet. SirFozzie 19:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose - OMG! SirFozzie is %100 correct. -- BenBurch 19:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong oppose. The unblocking group itself has expressly stated that the decision should not be seen as consensus or anything other than an assumption of good faith, which some at least appear to regret in hindsight given Dino's subsequent disruption. The opinion is just that: an opinion, from a subset of a very small group. The legal threats, to name but one issue, completely overcome any minor outbreak of civility in the attempt to be unblocked. This proposal is without merit, as stated and endorsed by parties to the decision when the issue was raised above. Guy ( Help!) 23:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose The consensus opinion of Unblock-en-l was a good faith decision based on available evidence at that time. Since then a considerable amount of new evidence has surfaced which indicate that perhaps the decision of unblock-en-l was made in error. Dman727 06:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose. We've already been over this. Gamaliel 18:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Fairness And Accuracy For All ( talk · contribs)/ NBGPWS ( talk · contribs) is blocked for one month and placed on Civility Parole

1) For general incivility and personal attacks, Fairness And Accuracy For All ( talk · contribs)/ NBGPWS ( talk · contribs), is blocked for one month. He is also to be placed on Civility parole for one year. Any administrator who finds Fairness and Accuracy For All to be in breach of WP:CIVIL may block the account for up to one week per incident. After five such blocks, the block length can be lengthened to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed, in an atttempt to find a neutral ground. He HAS been incivil and violated WP:NPA, but the balance of fault lies elsewhere in this case. The Civility Parole will hopefully keep this from happening again. SirFozzie 21:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I still don't think a block is warranted at this point; if he violates the parole, for sure. Article ban, parole, and apply zealously. Guy ( Help!) 09:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree with Guy. But if we MUST have a block, a week would be much more in line with the offense. -- BenBurch 13:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Definately a block is warranted in this case. The evidence above proves the uncivil behaviour of this editor to be consistant. He has been given so many second chances and yet always continues to offend. As the editor above commented, getting rid of Dino would not stop FAAFA as he is already at war with yet another editor. He has a habit of getting involved with controversial articles and it would appear that he activly seeks out controvesy purely so as to stir the pot and sit back and enjoy the fireworks. Personally I have nothing against FAAFA and apart from a few notes of sarcasm and dubious humor, my dealings with him have been quite civil, however his history shows that this is not the case for everyone and a block may well force this editor to evaluate his reasons for being here and if they are genuinely for the advancement of wikipedia or for his entertainment. Mobile 01 Talk 15:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of bans

1) All site-wide bans are to be enforced with blocking. All article or topic-wide bans are to be enforced with reversion on sight per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Enforcement by reverting edits, and blocking may be used in the case of repeated violation of bans. All blocks and bans to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. A clerk may want to replace this with standard wording from previous cases. Picaroon 18:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic/Workshop&oldid=1214825735"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

BFP's conduct and community block not considered

1) The conduct and community block of BFP will not be considered in this proceeding. If BFP chooses to seek reinstatement of his editing privileges, he may seek reinstatement through prescribed channels.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. If an admin insists on seeking committee endorsement of the block, then BFP should be allowed to participate in his own defense. Furthermore, it opens the door to consideration of the baiting and harassment of BFP by others that may have triggered his misconduct. This will unnecessarily complicate a proceeding that will be complicated enough without considering these issues. Dino 21:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I think this process is valueless without such ratification, especially as I assert that User:DeanHinnen either is User:BryanFromPalatine, acting under color of his putative brother's identity, or that DeanHinnen has been acting as his agent here on Wikipedia in avoidance of this ban, and that therefore he himself is subject to this same ban, which must therefore be material to this case and ratified by this proceeding. However, as a banned user, BryanFromPalatine has already forfeited his right to respond in this proceeding, and his statements to the time of his banning and on the record here are sufficient to ratify this action. -- BenBurch 23:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If BFP ever challenges his community block, sir, the issue can be discussed at that time. Until then, he appears to be perfectly happy with the status quo. Dino 17:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Well, of course he would be comfortable with the status quo! Having danced around the ban so neatly with uncountable "relatives" making accounts to carry out his agenda is a very comfortable position to be in, wouldn't you say? Hmmm... Could I do the same if you succeed in banning me? I have *two* brothers, a sister, a wife, two children, six nieces and nephews all of whom troop in and out of this place all the time (many have keys.) I think if we allow what you are doing to continue it makes a mockery of any block initiated for any reason whatsoever as there are very few people who do not have relatives. -- BenBurch 17:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The status quo is that every member of his family has been permablocked, sir, after being relentlessly ridiculed and hectored during WP:SSP and WP:RFCU, except me. I was permablocked as well, but was returned after a 10-day-long, very thorough examination at Unblock-en-l. I was only able to convince them to unblock me after being extraordinarily civil and patient, and revealing a huge amount of personal information in a public process. Would you and your family be comfortable with all of that, sir? The ridicule and hectoring in WP:SSP and WP:RFCU, the permablocking, and the revealing of personal information under the lengthy scrutiny of a public process to get unblocked? Dino 15:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Please, please please! Do not misrepresent the en-unblock-l "finding" or actions. They decided to give you a second chance, based on your promise to not be disruptive. Nothing binding, or exhaustive, or probative came out of that. You convinced a couple of good folks to trust you to come back here and not leave a mess to be cleaned up. -- BenBurch 16:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
This is for what reason? Because Dean doesn't want it endorsed? Guy ( Help!) 09:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Let's review, sir: "It opens the door to consideration of the baiting and harassment of BFP by others that may have triggered his misconduct. This will unnecessarily complicate a proceeding that will be complicated enough without considering these issues." Dino 10:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If BFP gets dragged into this, sir, I'll be dragging in each and every sockpuppet investigation that was used by BB & FAAFA as an excuse to ridicule and harass BFP. You want to talk about vexatious process? Each and every post that they made in those sockpuppet investigations and RFCU requests that exhibited any sign of incivility will result in a diff right here. [Partially refactored.] Dino 14:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't think it's fair to call BenBurch and FAAFA Guy's "clients". While he has stated that they "seem somewhat more open to the idea of pulling back", [1] he has treated all of the parties more or less equally.-- Grand Slam 7 | Talk 19:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I think this language is just another example of Dean's complete failure to understand how Wikipedia works. He's a lawyer, and he's brought the lawyer's world-view (adversarial, taking sides) to this dispute from the outset. The fact that Wikipedia is not a law court, this is not a legal process, and the use of legal language and legal threats is generally seen as extremely unhelpful, appears to have passed him by despite numerous attempts by various admins to inform him. Dean is, however, welcome to bring in the sockpuppet investigations - Bryan has about a dozen sockpuppets conclusively proven, but if Dino wants to dig Bryan's grave a bit deeper then I don't see we can stop him. Guy ( Help!) 10:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I have absolutely no doubt, sir, that if you succeed in dragging his case in here, BenBurch will gleefully drag in each and every one of the sockpuppet investigations. But I remind you that I was reinstated after a thorough investigation at Unblock-en-l. It's a case of friends and family members and co-workers sharing IP addresses and posting on the same article Talk page because they have a shared interest.
Maybe you're unfamiliar with this process, sir. But sometimes friends, co-workers and family members have shared interests, and sometimes they use the same computer, without satisfying the Wikipedia definition of a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. The Wikipedia article about sockpuppets and meatpuppets clearly describes that situation and cautions those who suspect sockpuppetry to consider such situations. You and the others here who think like you have carefully ignored that portion of official Wikipedia policy.
If the others shared my patience for the Unblock-en-l process (which can be slow and laborious) and if their experiences hadn't completely destroyed their trust in Wikipedia administrators, I am absolutely certain that by now they'd be unblocked as well. RFCU produces false positives; in at least one case where the alleged sockpuppet was permablocked by a trigger-happy admin, RFCU's result was "Possible," one step below "Likely" and two steps below "Confirmed"; in at least four cases where the alleged sockpuppets were permablocked by trigger-happy admins, there wasn't even an RFCU at all; and in at least one case, the RFCU actually cleared the so-called sockpuppet but a trigger-happy admin permablocked him anyway.
That would be you, sir.
BenBurch and FAAFA (and now you, sir) have consistently misrepresented all of these cases as "Confirmed." As if it had been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that all of these accounts arose from BFP's hosiery drawer.
The shared interest of all these parties was triggered on December 5 when BenBurch said to BFP, "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on." At that moment, BFP's father-in-law and brother-in-law happened to be present, and he directed their attention to the computer screen before it was deleted. The father-in-law promptly registered as ArlingtonTX; the brother-in-law promptly registered as 12ptHelvetica; and the seeds of the current conflict had been sown.
Thanks for that moment of barbarity, Ben. Dino 14:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Inviting new people to join to carry on a battle is not permitted either and violates the sockpuppet policy. There are other ways of dealing with editors you are in dispute with. Thatcher131 17:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
To the best of my knowledge, no one was invited, sir. They volunteered. Some families are like that when a member of the family has been told, "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on." Dino 00:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I think it's called "gang tactics". Guy ( Help!) 20:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
And each and every member of that "gang" was permablocked, sir, including me. All of the others were permablocked after being relentlessly ridiculed and hectored during WP:SSP and WP:RFCU. Every last one of them with no exceptions, sir, including their versions of BenBurch. And none of them had engaged in Wikistalking. JzG, is that the process you're prescribing for this gang as well? Dino 15:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Because (a) there were more than two of them, (b) they all edited from the same IP so in another sense there was only one (Bryan), (c) all the edits were confrontational or disputatious and (d) the edits of all the accounts were indistinguishable. None of these apply to the so-called "gang of two", BenBurch and FAAFA. Guy ( Help!) 19:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
(b) they all edited from the same IP so in another sense there was only one (Bryan), (c) all the edits were confrontational or disputatious and (d) the edits of all the accounts were indistinguishable.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Your consistent distortion of the facts in order to conceal the glaring weaknesses in your case is unbecoming to your status as an administrator, sir. See below regarding the IP addresses. Also, one of the alleged sockpuppets (ClemsonTiger) made approximately 200 very constructive, non-confrontational and completely uncontroversial edits to baseball-related articles, including anti-vandalism efforts and the creation of at least one new article Barry Bonnell, before anyone involved in this dispute became aware of his existence. Compared to BenBurch, ClemsonTiger was a saint. But ClemsonTiger is permanently banned. There were many distinctions clearly visible between these accounts. Some of them were entirely occupied with Free Republic and pursuing accusations against BenBurch and FAAFA (probably because they had seen the "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on" remark), but others were not. Dino 16:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Which was almost immediately reverted by me because I realized it was uncvil, and you only know about it because you dug through my history. Sad that is all you have to dredge up each and every time you deal with me, an act which in itself is wholly uncivil and a personal attack. -- BenBurch 19:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oh, the barbarity ! You sir, are a barbarous and barbaric BARBARIAN!! (I suspect that you might be from the Barbary Coast as well) Have you no sense of decency, sir?! ;-) - FAAFA 00:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
... and you only know about it because you dug through my history.
I know about it because you were engaged in an active, real-time conversation with BFP when you posted it, you waited until you were certain he'd seen it because he reacted to it, and then you deleted it. He then told me about it. Don't continue trying to rewrite history. It's all there in the automatic records Wikipedia keeps. Dino 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
He never reacted to it until after I had refactored it. -- BenBurch 20:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You left it there for several minutes, at a time when you were engaged in an active, real-time conversation with him. In those conditions you could be sure he had seen it, even though he hadn't posted a response yet. Dino 20:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Care to change your story again? Sad. -- BenBurch 20:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The "story" has never changed, sir. You provoked much of BFP's family with that one comment, and your continued and deliberate baiting and provocation continue to produce the result you seek: provoking people. BFP doesn't have to ask for help. He never did. Any one of his family and friends could take one look at your posts to him and immediately want to register an account at Wikipedia. Your baiting must stop, sir. Dino 23:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't expect it will stop. BenBurch is a BARBARIAN! - FAAFA
  • Our own User:Tbeatty provides a perfect example of an incivil posting being reverted in this very proceeding; [2]. Now, I don't think he should be abused for having done this, do you? -- BenBurch 14:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I reverted my own post as non-germane. Not sure how it was uncivil. I found it humorous. I didn't write anything or comment on it. Contrast it to the note left on my talk page. -- Tbeatty 14:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Tbeatty a) reverted an old, never-used drawing (of a penis) twice b) created a talk page about the drawing. He obviously had concerns over it. I thought it important to let him know the history. link and link link - FAAFA 23:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
And here is yet another example of Tbeatty's own 'trolling' - on the talk page of one of THE most hotly contested articles on all of Wiki - the 9/11 attacks. (so contentious that I don't participate!) TBeatty wrote:"How about "Paranoid Fantasies of Conspiracy Theorist?" Or if that's too POV, we could go with with "Conpiracy Theories of Paranoid Fanatics". --User:Tbeatty 06:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC) link - FAAFA 23:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Once again, you completely misrepresent reality. I was looking for more evidence of your misconduct and the logs showed you had uploaded Image:Ejacxto.jpg . I went to see what kind of contribution you had made but it was blank. I saw that there were revision. I clicked the wrong link and it executed a reversion. I was not expecting that nor did I know how to fix it. I left a helpme tag on the talk page to ask for assistance. [3]. This is clearly obvious. I figured it out before help arrived and youcan clearly see that I reverted the reversion to the last image uploaded. I made no comment as to the contents of the picture or the author since as far as I could tell, it was blank. And then you left this additional comment there [4], so I guess I found your misconduct in a round-a-bout way. -- Tbeatty 04:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

(UI) Note to Tbeatty : 1) "you completely misrepresent reality" is incivil and could be considered personal attack. Please refrain from such attacks in the future. (I could refactor it but that's not my style 2) Your recent false denials about not defaming Clinton as a murderer, then having to admit "you caught me" are still fresh on this board and in the minds of the readers, you might consider being more circumspect 3) quit refactoring what I write - FAAFA 08:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Agreed - Lots of wiki lawyering going on above, lots of personal attacks and cruft mungering. However the point of this section is to debate the proposal. As none of the above editors seem to want to state their opinion on the proposal with a vote, I am assuming that it should be carried. Personally I would love to hear from BryanFromPalatine and get his side of the story. It seems to me that there is a giant wave of hostility from a small group of likeminded editors trying very hard to run the solo gunman out of town. Mobile 01 Talk 12:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Contacts made to TJ Walker and WMF not considered

1) Because the issues of any contacts made to author TJ Walker and to the Wikimedia Foundation have not previously been the subject of any dispute resolution proceeding, they will not be considered by this committee at this time.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. If BenBurch hadn't refused my RfM, for example, we might have worked it all out at that level, including the Walker/WMF issues; and the Committee's valuable time might not now be invested in this dispute. Opposing parties should not be rewarded for their refusal to initiate proper dispute resolution on these issues. Also, WP:OFFICE can be expected to take reasonably good care of itself. Dino 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Objection ! No Way, José ! : This is the most important issue of the whole RfA. I have conclusive proof that Hinnen was wholly and intentionally dishonest and deceitful from day one, and acted far outside the bounds of acceptable user conduct by coercing a WMF employee to edit on his behalf through misrepresentation, deceit, and duplicity, along with implied and/or overt threats of legal action - all which justified my suspension of AGF towards Hinnen, as permissible under AGF. I am so positive that Hinnen's specious claim that TJ Walker 'admitted' to him that 'he didn't write' his 1999 article - the spurious claim that is responsible for this whole sordid mess is a fabrication - that If I am wrong, I implore the Arbitration committee to permanently ban me.
Hinnen's very first edit ( Jan. 15 edit #1) was to the Free Republic article discussion page announcing that he had coerced WMF employee Carolyn Doran (not a lawyer - not an active editor, and as such, not an expert on WP) to edit on his behalf, to his POV, after claiming that he (Hinnen) had contacted noted and notable author, pundit, and media coach TJ Walker ( CBS and National Review and TJ's Insights) who supposedly 'admitted' to Hinnen that he 'did not write' his 1999 article entitled Is the FreeRepublic.Com Really DeathThreat.Com? ( webarchive of article) Hinnen claimed (in his very first edit): "I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." (quotation marks Hinnen's) and raised the spectre of a possible libel suit against Wikipedia if she didn't. See my evidence page for more evidence - FAAFA 00:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
No way : This is the most important issue of the whole RfA.
Then you should have submitted it for dispute resolution before now, sir. Even when your friend Ben refused to participate in RfM, you could have started your own on this issue, and named me as the only other participant. If it was that important to you, sir, you should have taken steps to ensure that the dispute resolution process was exhausted before stepping in here with it. It's like skipping the trial court, skipping the appellate court, and filing your case for the first time in the United States Supreme Court. No way you should be allowed to do this. Dino 01:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
NOTE: FAAFA has already violated the rules of ArbCom procedure by deleting the preceding paragraph. diff Dino 02:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Because (a) your claims are false, (yet again) and (b) you're trolling. Dispute resolution:
link : ANi
link : Admin
link : Admin
link : Admin
link : WMF
link : WMF
link : ANi - FAAFA 02:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
That's not dispute resolution, sir. Nor is it a substitute for dispute resolution. According to JzG, that's trying to solicit admins to take your side in a content dispute. He says that it's vexatious and disruptive, sir. Dino 02:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. FAAFA, now you know not to do that. I am inclined to say two things about this. (1): This is probably the most important part of the case and (2): It was off wiki, to a foundation employee who has not been heard from since. It is very difficult to be objective with, and therefore may not be acceptable to arbcom. Prodego talk 02:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Yeah - that needs to be addressed as well. A foundation employee makes an edit without any edit summary, an edit that any editor would know will cause controversy, and then that employee and another foundation employee (Danny Wool) (and I think even Jimbo) don't even bother to respond to the repeated requests from editors and Admins to explain the edit and whether or not it was an WP:OFFICE action, as DeanHinnen claimed. Yeah - that too. - FAAFA 02:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Danny did talk to me about it. He confirmed some things, although he did not mention Office status. I assume it was not an Office action, since Office actions must be designated as such. Prodego talk 02:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:

Again, as before, the personal attacks [5] continue by FAAFA. How is a party participating in the ArbCom 'trolling?' This is the language that escalates almsot every edit he makes. -- Tbeatty 02:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Considering that this user, Tbeatty a) rationalised and defended a threat posted on my user page as being a genuine good-faith 'movie recommendation' when every other person considered it a threat or at least harassment link b) theorized that Hinnen might have actually called and spoken to TJWalker the pro ballplayer rather than TJWalker the author (I kid you not) c) refactored my user page where I called bush 'awol' link d) deleted my comments that he felt impugned HIM three times link - I feel that his complaints are actually pretty funny! - FAAFA 03:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Every other person including you saw it as a non-threat and it was overly dramatic. You mischaracterized the other two things as well and your poisoning the well style of argument is well known. For those keeping score at home, a SPA posted the cover of "Payback" to FAAFA's page after FAAFA was blocked for personal attack. Certainly harassment as I pointed out and warranted a block for the vandal, but that's all it was. ( update after he saw that no one thought it was a death threat) -- Tbeatty 07:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Tbeatty wrote:"I'm confused. What was the death threat? Usually a Death Threat includes a threat and all I saw from the diffs was a movie recommendation. I haven't seen the movie though, but it stars Mel Gibson so pretty mainstream." Link Any interested party need only look at this user's own actions, including his repeated misuse of BLP to remove content he doesn't like, even on talk pages. Link Note his interaction with admins Guy and Gamailel, especially when TBeatty was fighting tooth-and-nail to protect the 'reputation' of conservative mouthpiece, cum-gay-prostitute Jeff Gannon (note regarding my use of the preposition 'cum') solely (I allege) because he's conservative. Tbeatty had no such qualms (or BLP concerns) over writing that Bill Clinton murdered multiple individuals. He also added a BIO template onto the article of an organization that he supports - the now-defunct Islamophobic hate group Protest Warrior to squelch valid criticism. Never have I seen an editor misuse BLP as he has. - Link - FAAFA 21:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Another accusation without merit or facts as I never wrote any such thing. You even put back your BLP defamatory comments "cum-gay-prostitute" about a living person in this hearing. It is completely unacceptable. [6] Tbeatty 22:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Without merit? TBeatty starts and repeatededly adds to a list of 'suspicious deaths', a clear BLP violation, and TBeatty re-ads BLP-violating disproven conspiracy theories, over valid BLP objections. (it's OK with him to violate everything he CLAIMS to stand for, cause Clinton is a liberal) By the way, thats the Latin use of 'cum' as in 'also known as'- FAAFA 22:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You caught me. I actually started that article with this line. A year ago and before there was BLP. -- Tbeatty 23:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I 'caught' you ? Like this is all a game or a joke for you? You RE-ADDED BLP-violating disproven conspiracy theories that Clinton murdered people, over valid BLP objections, long after BLP was formulated. - FAAFA 23:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Clerk note: Please do not delete or modify evidence or proposals submitted by other parties (or others). See talk page for more. Newyorkbrad 02:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you, Brad. Dino 12:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Okay - FAAFA

I believe that this is a very serious issue as it possibly involves fraudulent representations made to Wikimedia Foundation staff in order to made edits to sway consensus on an article, specific and verifiable misrepresentations by whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen and libel against an ongoing enterprise, American Politics Journal, in violation of BLP. These actions of the staff member were then misrepresented as an OFFICE action in order to bully other editors from reverting them. Specifically, APJ was accused of publishing a Hoax article pretending to be an article by TJ Walker, it was claimed that the article was removed from APJ after pressure from whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen, and that TJ Walker never wrote this article. We now know all three of those representations to be absolute falsehoods. -- BenBurch 23:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Regardless of these arguments, there were several opportunities to present these concerns in dispute resolution and they were rejected. Parties should not now be rewarded for rejecting the initial and intermediate levels of dispute resolution on these issues. Go ahead and ask for RfM if it's that important. We have all the time in the world. Dino 01:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Let me make this explicitly clear to all: Carolyn's edit was not an office action. Plain and simple, it was not. There need be no more debate, confusion, and (wiki)lawyering on this point. Picaroon 01:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

That was my first hour on this site besides reading the articles. I had no clue that there was any distinction between Carolyn the WP:OFFICE employee, acting in her official capacity, and Carolyn the ordinary Wikipedia member. I somehow got the impression that all of her actions on this site were official actions, and I apologize to the Administrators and Arbitrators for that misunderstanding. Newbies make mistakes. Dino 02:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Or are you arguing that it ought to be? -- BenBurch 04:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:BITE is already official Wikipedia policy. I feel no need to argue that it ought to be. Dino 12:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:BITE is an official guideline, not a policy. - FAAFA 20:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
More hairsplitting. Dino 14:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Why on earth would we exclude consideration of Hinnen's legal threats based on unverifiable original research? Curious proposal. Guy ( Help!) 09:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
That's not what you're proposing here, sir. My so-called "legal threats" are discussed far below. What you're proposing in this section is an investigation into my contacts to WMF and TJ Walker. An entirely different matter, sir, and one that was never previously reviewed at any level of dispute resolution. FAAFA and BenBurch should not be rewarded for refusing to participate in dispute resolution on this issue. Dino 18:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Well..... excuuuse me! I'm not much on baseball, and I thought that TBeatty must have been referring to a Texas Ranger baseball player when he wrote: "There are plenty of explanations that don't include lying including different recollections as well as multiple people name TJ Walker. You have no idea whether he talked to TJ Walker or not (or which TJ walker, texas ranger)" link - but there is no Texas Ranger ballplayer named TJ Walker (or any Walker)! It appears that TBeatty was actually proposing that DeanHinnen might have called the fictional TV character Walker Texas Ranger played by actor Chuck Norris! (er....didn't that show end production in 2001?) Yikes! That is scary. A truly stunning revelation that forces me to reassess my evaluation of TBeatty entirely. - FAAFA 10:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

My only concern in that case was your use of the word lying to describe another editors actions. Considering that you made an honest mistake, twice, about the Walker I was referring to, I would hope you would understand how honest mistakes may happen without having to call someone a liar [7]. I thought it lacked and assumption of good faith and I simply asked you to stop calling Dean a liar [8]. Shouting well..... excuuuse me! is another typical example of your reaction. No one here pointed out your mistake or belittled you for not getting the reference as it was a trifle. Why are you now shouting? -- Tbeatty 14:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Well..... excuuuse me again! Until I researched it in detail, and found the actual quote, I could have never imagined that you would have actually been suggesting that Hinnen had called, and spoken to a fictional TV character. Now that I discover that is what you were suggesting, I'm nearly speechless. - FAAFA 14:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Dino appears to be asking the committee to accept his assertions but not challenge the basis for them. That is unacceptable. This is, and always has been, unverifiable original research contradicted by numerous credible sources. A credible rationale for this finding eludes me, unless it's to prevent ArbCom from ruling that it is indeed unverifiable original research, in which case the term "no thanks" fits just nicely. Guy ( Help!) 14:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't think Dino is asking the committee to accept anything. This seems like yet another attempt to cloud the issues with extendined wikilawyering. Frankly if none of you have anything new to add in each section then you might as well delete the rest and stick to the topics as defined. user GUY seems to be showing a distinct loathing towards user Dino and his constant tirades and insults do nothing for his credibility here. Mobile 01 Talk 12:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Dean / Bryan

1) ArbCo should please consider urgently whether comments like this [9] imply that the account User:DeanHinnen either is or is being shared with the banned User:BryanFromPalatine (note use of first person in response to questions regarding interaction between Bryan and BenBurch / FAAFA) Guy ( Help!) 09:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Note that what I was actually responding to was JzG's reference to WP:KETTLE, a statement directed to me, not BFP. There was nothing the least bit ambiguous about it. Dino 11:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
So you say, but your style tends to be supercilious and legalistic whereas Bryan's is more combative, and looking at the contributions recently it appears to me very much as if Bryan is editing from your account, as is also strongly implied by the use of first person in respect of text which explicitly refers to Bryan's dispute with the other parties and that within a section which is almost entirely made up of similar assertions, none of which relate to "Dean" Hinnen and all of which relate to "Bryan". You will be well aware that some are sceptical that the two are indeed separate at all. Guy ( Help!) 10:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
... but your style tends to be supercilious and legalistic whereas Bryan's is more combative ...
It's good of you to finally notice. While our interests and goals are similar, our personal styles in pursuing them are polar opposites. I am a negotiator and a diplomat. BFP is a warrior. If he negotiates at all, he prefers to fight first, gain the upper hand and then negotiate from a position of strength. The fact that I don't take the bait that is constantly being shoved in my face, while BFP took the bait with a snarl every time he got the slightest whiff of it, should tell you everything you need to know about this false accusation, sir. Dino 12:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oh yes, we've all noticed your "diplomacy" and "negotiating" style :o) Guy ( Help!) 21:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
At some point, sir, everyone runs out of patience when faced with this relentless mockery and baiting. Even me. Dino 22:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
In your case, that appears to have been before you even arrived. You have been aggressive and vexatious from the outset. Guy ( Help!) 16:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Well, you know how this works. Show us a few diffs proving that I was "aggressive and vexatious from the outset." Dino 18:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
How terribly vexatious and aggressive of me. Oh dear. [10]
There I am, being vexatious and aggressive again. Dreadful. [11]
Vexatious intervention in a sockpuppet investigation. Shameful. [12]
A pattern of vexatious and aggressive edits was emerging. Why wasn't I banned on sight? [13] [14] [15] Dino 19:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This is covered below. Guy ( Help!) 20:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy ( Help!) 09:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Posting " WP:KETTLE" in a direct response to a post by Dino subsumes that I am the Pot calling the Kettles black. The fact that I'm not BFP has already been cleared up. Dino 14:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Haven't you been reading what the admins and others have posted here at all? You are the only one here, including the fellow from en-unblock-l who thinks this matter has been cleared up. And you have been instructed already that there is zero binding status to an unblock decision from that list. As has been noted they do not "check Bona Fides." I assert that you either are BryanFromPalatine, posting using his putative brother's name or some other person acting entirely as his agent here - identical for the purposes of Wikipedia. -- BenBurch 14:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Also: BryanFromPalatine - disruptive user who registers many sockpuppet accounts in order to pursuer biased edits of Free Republic and argue for his unblocking and for sanctions against those whose political views oppose his; DeanHinnen - disruptive user who continues the campaign of biased editing, pleading for BryanFromPalatine, and for sanctions against those same users, from the same IP address. A difference which makes no difference is no difference. Guy ( Help!) 16:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
And honestly, I don't know why we don't close the matter of Dean Hinnen with that. Even if he is the "Brother" of Bryan From Palatine, and not a sock puppet, there certainly is a neat little Meat Puppet cluster here in NE Illinois. I have changed my mind that I think he could ever be a good editor, and I think he needs to be block JUST for the sockpupptry. Even in this process here he has been truculent, vexatious and had displayed a mendacity that is the opposite of what a Wikipedia editor ought to be. -- BenBurch 00:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
To summarize: if two family members, co-workers or schoolmates named Ricky and Ronnie are editing from the same IP address and Ricky is a Freeper, then Ronnie had better be a happy little Daily Kos camper or completely apolitical. If they're both Freepers, JzG wants them both banned as sockpuppets, and he doesn't object if BenBurch and FAAFA subject them to relentless ridicule and harassment during WP:SSP and WP:RFCU.
Furthermore, if BenBurch and FAAFA attack Ricky and relentlessly ridicule and harass him into self-destruction, then Ronnie had better greet BenBurch and FAAFA as long-lost bosom buddies or ignore them. Otherwise, JzG will insist that Ronnie must be immediately banned as a sockpuppet.
It is ridiculous to expect that two editors who share an IP address must be polar opposites. Chances are that they will have similar interests. And chances are that when one of them is tormented into self-destruction, the other one isn't going to stand idly by.
When an editor proves at Unblock-en-l that he is not a sockpuppet and he is unblocked, he should be able to rely on that decision. One element that hasn't yet been discussed is WP:AGF. That philosophy mitigates in favor of allowing an Unblock-en-l decision to stand unchallenged, in the absence of powerful new evidence that the user is a sockpuppet. Otherwise, why should anyone bother with Unblock-en-l at all? Dino 16:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Except that, per previous ArbCom rulings, there is no need to distinguish between sockpuppets and meatpuppets, especially when they are as disruptive and disputatious as you are. Your constant harping on about "proof" is also false, what happened was that a small group active on the unblock list decided to assume good faith. They have repeatedly stated precisely that: the finding is ion no way binding or a precedent, it is just their opinion. I don't know how many times we are going to have to corrcet this canard of yours before you finally stop repeating it. Guy ( Help!) 22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Apposed. - The edit provided does not seem to imply anything but that which Dino says it does. Mobile 01 Talk 12:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

ArbCom to contact Carolyn Doran of WMF

Hinnen's very first edit ( Jan. 15 edit #1) was to the Free Republic article discussion page after he had coerced WMF employee Carolyn Doran to edit for him. Doran had urged Hinnen to open an account and make the edits himself. Hinnen refused, claiming he would be seen as a 'vandal' and convinced Ms. Doran to edit on his behalf to his POV, based on unconfirmed and dubious OR. He did however open an account that same day after Doran's edits were reverted by an Admin suspecting impersonation. Evidence shows that Hinnen almost certainly used the threat of legal action against Carolyn Doran personally - or Carolyn Doran as acting as an 'agent' on behalf of Wikipedia to coerce her to edit an article where he has a clear COI. Hinnen has repeatedly postulated that in the event of successful libel action against Wikipedia any WMF employee who was asked to remove 'libelous' content and declined could be a held personally liable. On the day (01-15-07) that Hinnen spoke with Doran 4 times, one of her very few edits was to remove her name from a list of WMF employees, clear evidence that she had a realistic fear of a lawsuit from DeanHinnen or DeanHinnen acting on behalf of Free Republic as an admitted member of their 'legal team'. It is critical to this proceeding that Ms. Doran be contacted regarding the events of 01-15-07 including if she called 'TJ Walker' as Hinnen has suggested, if anyone called her claiming to be TJ Walker, and the reason she felt it necessary to delete her own name from the list of WMF employees.

As a separate issue, I suggest that ArbCom examine if the actions the hard-working well-meaning Admins involved in the early stages of this matter were sufficiently proactive. I asked that they contact Doran early on, and I believe that DeanHinnen would have likely have been permanently (or temporarily pending more investigation) banned right after speaking with Ms. Doran for several egregious violations of WP, including overt legal threats. This would have saved 100's of hours of argument by dozens people including numerous Admins. They chose to treat the whole matter as a 'content dispute' with Ms. Doran's coerced edits, motivated by fear of legal action, deemed nothing more than the edits of any other editor instead. I believe this to be serious but non-malicious error in judgment, perhaps due to the mettlesome multiple layers of dispute resolution bureaucracy, or perhaps due to not wanting to get personally involved, an understandable concern. That is why I contacted Danny Wool who didn't even bother to respond to my concerns posted on his talk page. This should be addressed as well. I also request that WMF appoint someone to monitor their pages and respond to non-trivial questions and comments in a timely manner.

Proposed: FaAfA 23:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Endorsed This is one of the most important points here; Whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen attempted to manipulate Wikipedia in this fashion. -- BenBurch 16:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Partial endorse. The whole saga with Ms. Doran needs to be investigated by the ArbCom. If nothing else, for transparency reasons. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Go for it. Dino 16:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Partial endorse The title of this proposal is right on target although I'm not certain I can agree with every portion of it (the claim that Carolyn Doran feared personal liability based on a single edit appears to be farfetched). There's definitely a need to clarify her role, as well as a need to clarify the strong appearance that her participation at this article resulted from a request from a disputant whose claims may have been fallacious. Durova Charge! 19:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Partial endorse. Someone talk to the lady and lets for once and for all find out the truth, maybe then the postulating and hypertheticals can stop. Mobile 01 Talk 12:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

ArbCom to contact police

Clerk note: Removed as outside the scope of a Wikipedia arbitration proceeding. In response to a comment here, I will urge that reports of the case elsewhere on Wikipedia be modified to exclude the language objected to. Newyorkbrad 21:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

This case to be closed

It seems to me that we have the following situation:

  • User:BryanFromPalatine is banned, there is no suggestion this ban be lifted, it was discussed several times by admins and the community before being enacted and was a response to clear abuse by BryanFromPalatine
  • User:DeanHinnen edits from the same IP address, makes legal threats, is pursuing BryanFromPalatine's vendetta against FAAFA and BenBurch
  • Both BryanFromPalatine and DeanHinnen claim to be or have been members of the Free Republic legal team
  • There is a source that states that the FR legal team member was Bryan Hinnen, middle name Dean [16], not a good source, but it certainly fits the observed facts. Note: I have addressed above the canard that using the words "Bryan" and "Hinnen" in conjunction is somehow a privacy violation - DeanHinnen introduced the supposed persona of his brother Bryan, I am simply joining the dots and in this instance also pointing out what an external source says; this is reported by APJ as User:Apj-us-nyc and backed by user:Eschoir on /Evidence. Both these users appear to ahve off-Wiki knowledge of Dean
  • There is no sense in carrying on the charade of pretending that Bryan and Dean are functionally separate: if they are different individuals (whihc several of us doubt), they are doing the same things for the same people from the same location, so may be treated as if they were the same individual

Therefore I propose that this case be closed as vexatious process, User:DeanHinnen's indefinite block be restored as a ban-evading puppet of User:BryanFromPalatine, and if anyone cares enough User:Fairness And Accuracy For All be banned from the Free Republic article.

I cannot believe how much time we have wasted when right up front we should simply have banned DeanHinnen for legal threats and left it at that. This case is a complete waste of ArbCom's time, and more importantly is unnecessary to fix the actual problem, which is disruptive editing and legal threats by an editor with a conflict of interest, compounded by incivility and trolling by at least one other editor. Dean's sole purpose, it seems to me, is to secure a retaliatory ban on BenBurch and FAAFA. The tortuous arguments below look complex but if you take a step back and think about what the problem is we're being asked to address, the solution jumps right out at you.

So I move that this case be speedily closed as above. Guy ( Help!) 10:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I think FAAFA needs a closer look than just an article ban. -- Tbeatty 14:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, you may be right. Article ban and standard civility parole, that would pass by acclamation at the community noticeboard I think, since a civility parole is no more than an enforcement of what should be done anyway. Guy ( Help!) 15:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply

*Endorse Stick a fork in it. It's done. -- BenBurch 14:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Ben, since you are directly affected by the proposed resolution it may be best for you to step back, and perhaps strike the above. You have not exactly covered yourself in glory, and I think your edits will be under scrutiny for a while yet, but I do not think that you are in the same league as BryanDean or FAAFA. Guy ( Help!) 15:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Fair enough. -- BenBurch 16:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment : I encourage everyone to read Jossi's (who was the highly involved mediator on FR - for which I thank him) comments, then follow the link to the archived FR talk page mentioned, and study my participation - scrutinize it closely. My conduct was acceptable up until the invasion of the Palatine Puppet Platoon, and even after that - during mediation and later- although my civility was less than desirable - my actions (edits) spoke louder than my words (talk page unpleasantness) and I contributed a substantial amount of RS V content which reflects only positively on Free Republic (Dixie Chicks, Tony Snow, Freep at Walter Reed, JimRob bio back to Whitewater days). I have no problem being banned from the Free Republic article - if its is put on Administorial Probabtion. You think you have a Hinnen sock puppet now? (7 (+) confirmed sock accounts? link) Just wait. respectfully - FaAfA (yap) 18:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I tend to agree with most of this aspects of this proposal..except for the outcome proposed. Alot of work has been done by many parties. Most all of the evidence has been presented and while I think that what the evidence reveals is obvious...well its supposed to be that way (after all it *IS* evidence). The fact that things are much clearer *now* is only because of all the effort done to date in this proceeding. To cut the process short now would be a mistake and would be akin to a judge in a criminal case dismissing the case right before sending it to the jury because it became obvious after hearing all the evidence that the accused was innocent (not to imply that anyone is innocent or guilty in this situation). Simply put, the reason things are obvious now, is only because the process is working.
To cut the process short now would be a mistake IMO. Let those affected "have their day in court"...an arbitrator ruling will useful in the future when addressing similiar conduct (perhaps byt the same parties) in the future. Furthermore I agree with Tbeaty above..FaaFa's conduct AND actions should be scrutinized closely, and IMO may not be excuseable despite any claims to the contray as suggested. Dman727 22:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Appose. I can find no logical reason to end these procedings before a verdict is heard. If you end it now then you must find all parties innocent and no action taken. If you wish to have a verdict then let it run it's course. My opinion for what it's worth. Users BenBurch, FAAFA and Dino should be permabanned from editing Free Republic. The three of them have wasted so much time on this along with their enterage of supporters that no one is doing any editing for wikipedia anymore. I checked the contribs of all the 3 editors and they all at one point have made some really good edits. Finish the arbitration so everyone can get back to making wikipedia what it should be. None of this is really helping wikipedia. Mobile 01 Talk 12:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Concerning lawsuit threats from "Dean": :American Politics Journal's publisher had a conversation on Monday, March 12 with Charles Doerksen, the highly-regarded litigator who is in fact the lawyer of record for Free Republic LLC. He was not aware of "Dean"'s recent e-mails to Wikipedia or APJ. It would be safe to say that Wikipedia can quite comfortably disregard any threats emanating from the e-mail account of one "Dean" Hinnen. Something tells me that Mr. Doerksen might also be interested in the Hinnen sock drawer. -- Apj-us-nyc 19:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Arbitrators to read FR Talk archives and refer to 2 RFAr's

A)For the Arbitrators to get a true picture of the history of Free Republic article - whether certain editor's conduct and contributions were in good faith, within the bounds of WP - and if there were mitigating factors which could have lead to lapses of civility and good faith - such as multiple RFCU confirmed sock puppets 'voting' to sway consensus, and provoking other editors - it is desirable perhaps even necessary for all voting Arbitrators to read the Free Republic talk page archives starting with Archive Two and the Anthrax issue, up until the current time frame. Relying on the diffs presented here and in evidence may lead to a distorted picture of the goings-on, as the diffs chosen for evidence concentrate on WP violations and conflict, rather than the good faith efforts of numerous editors to work out differences, compromise, and to work together during the structured mediation by Admin Jossi.

B) It is also proposed that Arbitrators on this RFAr review the two RFAr's involving editor MONGO, and rely on those decisions for guidance and precedent in regards to lapses of NPA and CIVIL between editors with firmly held beliefs - and also if mitigating circumstances such dealing with sockpuppets can be considered when evaluating an editor's possible lapses of NPA and CIVIL. See: Evidence and Proposed decision and Outcome.

Proposed : - FaAfA (yap) 00:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Reply : To Guy below. I don't expect to get the same kind of pass MONGO got. I expect at least a civility parole, and would welcome it - maybe that would help curtail the frequent baiting from two non-admin contributors to this RFAr, and my frequent over-reaction. Again, I encourage Admins to read the FR talk page archives. When I am dealing with reasonable people acting reasonably, I am often (but not always) perfectly reasonable and well within the bounds of WP myself. I'd have to be a hard-working Sysop to get the kind of pass MONGO got - or merit it. (I will note however that many of MONGO's NPA and CIVIL violations had nothing to do with trolls - but were with people who he disagreed with politically - on articles not even related to 9/11) I ask that the Arbitrators consider my NPA and CIVIL lapses against confirmed sock-puppets, and disagreements with one user who has been trying to get me banned for months - provoking me with such actions as vandalising my user page twice (once creating a SPA sock puppet account to do so) and repeatedly deleting what I write on talk pages with bogus BLP claims diff1, diff2, diff3, UNrefactoring other's comments without their permission diff4 - and to consider these actions in the same light as MONGO's 'battles' against ED and Cplot trolls / sock puppets and with a couple users with whom he had long standing disputes. - FaAfA (yap) 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply : To Tbeatty regarding UNrefactoring. Two parties agreed to redact their own comments which they agreed were unhelpful and contentious. Eschoir redacted his own comments. You (then Carlton) UNredacted his comments claiming that they should be archived ? Funny - you never ONCE mentioned 'archiving' talk page comments the NUMEROUS times you redacted my comments! (and yes, you were overstepping you role as an editor to reverse an editor's redaction of his OWN comments) - FaAfA (yap) 18:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Are you trying to claim that you merit the kind of pass which MONGO got there? If so you're well of base. MONGO was a sysop, one of the hardest working people on the project, has a history of years of hard work, and was viciously attacked solely for his attempts to maintain Wikipedia policy. Not even close, I'm afraid. Guy ( Help!) 18:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm just an ogre.-- MONGO 08:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
It would seem to me that the arbitrators would have to look at the history of this article anyway just to understand the whole picture. My own experience with user benburch and Dino have been nothing but civil. FAAFA does tend to stir the pot a bit, but I am not sure he/she deliberately tries to break the rules. This section seems pointless. Mobile 01 Talk 12:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Once again, FAAFA most recent evidence of others wrongdoing was an excuse for an inflammatory edit summary [17]. And as usual, this generated more heat than light. [18]. -- Tbeatty 15:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Request Checkuser as part of ArbCom (withdrawn)

Similiar editing styles (i.e. language used such as "Hinnen sock drawer" and "Family sock drawer")

Both from NYC area. [19] vs. name of apj-us-nyc. (I'm in SoCal, Conspiracy-Boy) -proof- Nice try though ! FREE FaAfA ! (yap)

Dovetailing edits. FAAFA

  • 13:24, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Zombietime (replaced ref 1, non rs v blog with The Age) (top)
  • 13:20, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Zombietime (→The Flight 93 National Memorial - added RCP and LGF - zombie credits them in his article as raising the issue first)
  • 13:11, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Zombietime (added pro israel, anti abortion)
  • 13:03, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zombietime (→My next concern) (top)
  • 12:41, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Zombietime (rewrote intro to reflect reality. his most current report is on an art gallery opening!)
  • 12:23, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Zombietime (→My next concern)

apj

  • 12:37, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop (→This case to be closed) (top)
  • 12:35, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop (→This case to be closed)
  • 12:31, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Evidence (→Evidence presented by American Politics Journal)
  • 12:28, March 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Evidence (→Regarding Dean Hinnen)

And FAAFA

  • 13:23, March 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop (→Arbitrators to read FR Talk archives and refer to 2 RFAr's)
  • 13:08, March 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop (→Arbitrators to read FR Talk archives and refer to 2 RFAr's)

apj

  • 13:08, March 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Apj.jpg (→Licensing) (top)
  • 13:07, March 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Fairness And Accuracy For All (→Copyright problems with Image:Apj.jpg)
  • 13:06, March 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Fairness And Accuracy For All (→Copyright problems with Image:Apj.jpg)


Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support - What a silly allegation. People post at the same times because we share a diurnal cycle. Settle it by doing a checkuser, please. -- BenBurch 21:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support - (I'm in SoCal, Conspiracy-Boy) -proof- Nice try though ! FREE FaAfA ! (yap)
Support &#150; ... and I'm in New York. Yagoddaproblemwiddat? -- Apj-us-nyc 00:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Leave it on the page. It's evidence of Tbeatty's thinking, conduct, and 'AGF'. FREE FaAfA ! (yap)
Comment by others:
Support to clear the air, but remind FaAfA of the old saying "To get out of a hole, the first thing one must do is stop digging." SirFozzie 21:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn I've withdrawn the request as non-productive. FAAFA wants to have it on the page as a withdrawn request rather than just a removal. either way is okay with me. -- Tbeatty 22:41, 12 March 2007

Proposed temporary injunctions

Enjoining the parties from contact with each other

Due to cross-allegations of harassment and incivility, and cross-allegations of a conflict of interest regarding the Free Republic article, for the duration of this arbitration:

1) None of the parties shall edit the Free Republic article or its Talk page;

2) Fairness And Accuracy For All and BenBurch shall not edit the User page or User Talk page of DeanHinnen, or the Nancy Pelosi, Bill Nelson or Peter Roskam articles or their Talk pages;

3) DeanHinnen shall not edit the User pages or User Talk pages of Fairness And Accuracy For All and BenBurch; and

4) All three parties shall refrain from editing any article or Talk page whose history shows an edit by an opposing party in the previous ten days.

5) The preceding shall not be construed to prohibit any party from editing his own User or User Talk page, or any page that was edited by an opposing party in violation of this injunction; nor shall the preceding be construed to prohibit DeanHinnen from editing the Nancy Pelosi, Bill Nelson or Peter Roskam articles or their Talk pages.

6) Any party violating this injunction will be subject to an immediate 24-hour block by any administrator. Longer blocks may be contemplated, depending upon the severity of any incivilities involved.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
This is necessary to prevent harassment and incivility. I concede that I have a COI regarding Free Republic, but I allege that the opposing parties also have a COI there. While there appears to be a truce of sorts at the moment, I am not confident that it will last; and the only reason it now exists is that I'm not taking their bait. JzG told us to stay away from each other for two weeks on February 3. The moment I posted on BenBurch's Talk page, I was blocked for 24 hours by JzG; but both BB & FAAFA are being allowed to violate JzG's prohibition with complete impunity. I am alleging a WP:STALK violation by two editors. Both the WP:STALK violation and the fact that there are two of them and only one of me have increased the intimidation factor exponentially. This is not conducive to resolution of this arbitration. Page histories will confirm that I started editing the Nancy Pelosi, Bill Nelson or Peter Roskam articles and their Talk pages, and then I was followed there in an effort to continue this dispute. The proof of the allegation is right there in the edit histories. This injunction shouldn't be drafted in a way that rewards such behavior. Dino 20:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I disagree with the 4th part of this injunction. By editing a talk page of an article, one party could essentially own it, by editing it every 10 days. I do not think it would be wise. I disagree with point 2, and I think that all articles should be removed from that point, leaving only user and user talk pages. However, I agree with all other parts of this proposal. Prodego talk 03:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
ALSO I am am technically a party in this arbitration request. Be careful with references to "parties", as that would include me. Prodego talk 17:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I have disagree with all of the above articles of this injunction. Whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen appears to have no other gainful employment than editing Wikipedia or so it might be judged by looking at the frequency with which he edits this project. No article he touches will ever go ten days or even ten hours without him re-editing something on it, and he could therefore make a series of preventative edits to freeze out entire swaths of Wikipedia from any of the other parties to this dispute. In fact I think this may be his intention. Further, I believe that all of my edits to the referenced specific articles pass muster as actual attempts to improve these articles. The only part I might agree to is the prohibition against editing each other's talk pages. But as whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen appears to have created at least one sock puppet already, if this account is not in fact a sock puppet of User:BryanFromPalatine, then the prohibition is in danger of being breeched by socks. -- BenBurch 00:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
If editors are going to be prohibited from editing articles, then they should all be prohibited from editing the same ones. An unproven allegation of stalking should not be enough to prohibit two editors from editing an article and allow one free reign. User:DeanHinnen's behavior on the Peter Roskam article, while it has improved greatly in the last day or two, has been much more contentious and problematic than any of the other editors whose behavior is the subject of this proceeding, and I had to threaten to block him before he stopped insulting the editors there, including editors who had been working on the article long before DH showed up. Gamaliel 21:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Gamaliel, this is within the scope of a preliminary injunction. Arbitrators will review existing evidence and make a decision on whether an injunction is advisable, and the particulars of that injunction. In this case, the evidence is painfully obvious from edit histories of all these articles. We were involved in a content dispute on Free Republic. I left and started editing the other three articles. Then they started editing the other three articles. Administrator JzG previously told us to stay away from each other for two weeks on February 3. He had a good reason for doing so, and it was one of the reasons why I left the Free Republic pages and started editing Peter Roskam. (By the way, I successfully formed a consensus there and the article is much improved.) After a decision on the injunction, we will then proceed to determine whether their editing of those articles violated WP:STALK. Dino 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Of course it is within the scope of ArbCom's authority to issue these kinds of preliminary injunctions. I'm just objecting to the particulars of this injunction. Overall, I don't think it is a bad idea, but it should be applied fairly and uniformly. Gamaliel 00:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I couldn't agree more. But these two should not be rewarded for conduct that may ultimately be identified by the Committee as Wikistalking. Dino 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Rewarded? What is the "reward" in this case? Being allowed to edit an article in which anyone in the world is allowed to edit? Users interested in the same topics, in this case US politics, will naturally edit many of the same articles, and you shouldn't get dibs on an article merely due to an accident of timing. If you can show they went to an article merely to harass you, then that is stalking. But their edits that I have seen appear to be in good faith, and the harrassment guidelines should not be used to ban editors from articles merely because you can't get along with them. This idea offends me because it is contrary to Wikipedia principles, and it bothers me all the more because your conduct was worse than theirs on Peter Roskam, and yet if this injunction passes, you will be the one "rewarded". Gamaliel 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Rewarded? What is the "reward" in this case?
Being permitted to continue their gang tactics and Wikistalking on the three articles I have chosen to edit (and disengage from those two). Read my presentation on the Evidence page, Gamaliel. They are continuing their campaign of mockery, baiting and edit warring on Peter Roskam and elsewhere. I've provided diffs to prove it. I disengaged from a content dispute. They followed me wherever I went to continue the dispute. The evidence is beyond any reasonable doubt, Gamaliel. Dino 02:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
No credible reason is advanced why BenBurch and FAAFA should be restricted from article talk space. Recent emails to me by Dino show nothing but civil debate from BenBurch on those talk pages. We typically do not give tendentious editors a free pass during the course of arbitration cases. Dino's definition of "harrassment" in this case appears to mean opposing edits which look, to my eye, to be distinctly influenced by his acknowledged bias. Guy ( Help!) 10:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Recent emails to me by Dino show nothing but civil debate from BenBurch on those talk pages.
I repeat: Click on the links to diffs that I provided in my section of the Evidence page, sir. The mockery and baiting has continued. In a few cases it has been exceptionally mean-spirited. I have refrained from any dispute resolution measures only because you would instantly describe them as "vexatious" and start interfering with them. You would probably also permablock me for violating the community ban on vexatious process that you've just obtained at WP:ANI. Click on the links on the Evidence page, sir, and see for yourself. Dino 17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I did. I saw you reverting Calton, an editor of long experience and no prior involvement I can see, with an offensive edit summary. I saw BenBurch taking it to Talk, which is what you should have done, and stating the case in measured and civil tones - in marked contrast to your behaviour, as noted above. I have stated this elsewhere, but this case is already a Hydra, thanks largely to you. Guy ( Help!) 21:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Here. Click on this link. [20] No more excuses for not noticing it. I look forward to your response, sir. Dino 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Cant agree with this one, it would have to be all or nothing. All the pages mentioned above are either banned for all 3 editors or none at all. I don't see a problem with edits to discussion pages as long as they remain civil. The article mentioned though should be banned for all or for none. Mobile 01 Talk 12:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Enjoining the parties from contact with each other

Due to cross-allegations of harassment and incivility, and known conflict of interest regarding the Free Republic article, for the duration of this arbitration:

1) None of the parties shall edit the Free Republic article;

2) Fairness And Accuracy For All and BenBurch shall not edit the User page or User Talk page of DeanHinnen;

3) DeanHinnen shall not edit the User pages or User Talk pages of Fairness And Accuracy For All and BenBurch;

4) All three parties shall refrain from initiating threads on the administrators' noticeboards or elsewhere in project space in respect of conduct by the others; any requested interventions to be brought here for the attention of the administrators who are watching this page. The sole exception shall be the posting of any edits which unquestionably violate WP:BLP, which may be posted without mention of user names or attendant comment regarding editing behaviour for consideration at the relevant noticeboards. Note that adjudication of what constitutes a violation of WP:BLP rests with the reviewing administrators and not with the parties;

5) All parties, when participating in article talk pages, are required to restrict themselves to content, not to asserted misbehaviour by other parties, and are required to abide by Wikipedia policies regarding original research, verifiability and sourcing. Judgment of what constitutes neutrality or undue weight should be left to independent parties on these talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I agree to do this regardless of whether it is adopted or not.-- BenBurch 20:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support : as long as a neutral admin monitors the FR article which is being hit by socks and anon IP's from both sides. I myself reverted one edit where a troll added a pic of hooded klansmen. I suggest semi protection from nonregistered users now. - FaAfA 22:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
This is an alternate version of the above proposal by Dino, which proposal has a number of serious flaws in terms of the Wikipedian ethos (for example, he idea that if any of these editors, with their known political bias, makes an edit to an article or its talk, then none of the editors who disagree with that political bias may challenge that edit, runs fundamentally counter to normal practice). It has already been proposed numerous times that the parties refrain from posting to each other's talk pages; I think all have violated that. It has also been proposed that they do not edit articles where they have a conflict of interest. And it has been previously proposed that they refrain from vexatious process, but this, too, has been comprehensively ignored and Dean's proposal above did not touch on this, one of the most disruptive elements of the dispute. Guy ( Help!) 10:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Vexatious process has already been adequately addressed in a WP:ANI community solution that you initiated yourself, and it appears to be working. So I can't believe you've forgotten already. Addressing it again is unnecessary unless there's some sign it's not working. That may explain why it's being "comprehensively ignored," sir. Now perhaps you'd like to explain why you're comprehensively ignoring so very many things. Dino 17:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
ArbCom trumps informal agreements. And you miss the point: this is a more neutral version of the injunction you requested, which was never going to be agreed to because ArbCom is unlikely in the extreme to agree a solution where you, an editor with a clear and stated bias, can unilaterally ban named editors with the opposite point of view simply by deciding to edit an article, in however biased a way. I would be absolutely astonished if they agreed to any such thing. Whereas they might agree to accept an injunction which stops the problem, by restricting the parties from the kinds of behaviour that caused it to escalate. Anyway, what's the problem? Were you intending to engage in further vexatious process? Guy ( Help!) 20:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Here. Click on this link. [21] No more excuses for not noticing it. I look forward to your response, sir. Dino 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
One of the few belly laughs in this entire tedious proceeding. For once I completely agree with FAAFA - the conspiracy bullshit is tiresome in the extreme. Guy ( Help!) 16:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Yeah, that's what I thought. You absolutely refuse to enforce your own admonition to FAAFA to leave me alone for two weeks, and instead join him in pointing at me and having a good belly laugh. As I've said, start acting like an administrator for a change, instead of a petulant child who has erroneously been given the powers of an administrator. At no time did I mention anything about "conspiracy bullshit." The left-wing bias has been described elsewhere as being similar to the "Yankees Suck" chant at a home game of the Boston Red Sox. Nobody is deliberately organizing it. There is no conspiracy. It's just a mob of like-minded people with the same bias. When they hear someone start it, they join in. Dino 19:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Dino, you broke the covenant, you can't then have it applied against others. And FAAFA's comment was a humorous one anyway. No admin would block for something that trivial. Guy ( Help!) 11:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This was never humorous, sir. Even Jerry Lewis would agree that if it was ever funny at some point long ago, it has stopped being funny. One clue about whether it was funny was my repeated use of the words "mockery" and "harassment" and "Wikistalking" prior to this post. Another was your admonition to FAAFA to leave me alone for two weeks.
Regarding your defense of the comment as trivial, one snowball is trivial but an avalanche is another matter. That snowball was just one part of an avalanche.
Dino, you broke the covenant, you can't then have it applied against others.
That's another redefinition then, sir. How many times did you redefine that "strong suggestion" in the two weeks that it lasted? First it was a "strong suggestion," then it was a "final warning," and now it's a "covenant." Dino 17:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Agreed. A better definition of the original proposal. However for the sake of our sanity it would still be a wise move for all three to refrain from editing any of the article in question while this process is in motion. Mobile 01 Talk 13:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Solicitation

1) The parties should refrain from soliciting the involvement of others, either on Wikipedia or through external means.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Of course I'm e-mailing one admin to solicit involvement in the dispute. I'm e-mailing JzG, asking him to enforce the warning to "leave each other alone for two weeks" that he didn't hesitate for an instant to enforce against me with a 24-hour block, but refuses to enforce against BB & FAAFA. The result has been a WP:STALK violation by BB & FAAFA. Dino 21:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • No, you're trying to solicit involvement. I am watching the dispute. I don't need your one-sided versions (for example, the last lot you sent me was some perfectly civil discussion). Guy ( Help!) 09:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The presence of a couple of Tony Soprano's thugs in a bakery, shaking down the cashier for some protection money, can also appear to be "some perfectly civil discussion" when a cop drives by and looks in the window, sir. They were engaging in an edit war just like their other edit wars, with a thin veneer of civility. This thin veneer can vanish in a New York second and I'm well aware of it from multiple previous experiences with these two. As always, you ignore the exponential intimidating effects of gang tactics. Furthermore, you "strongly suggested" that they leave me alone for two weeks. You did not limit your admonition to "be civil." You admonished them to LEAVE ME ALONE. And you admonished them to leave me alone FOR TWO WEEKS. That was February 3. Today is February 14, sir. Do the math. When I made one post to cordially mention the possibility of a debate between BenBurch and my brother after an identical "strong suggestion," you didn't hesitate for a nanosecond to block me for 24 hours, sir. My e-mails to you were the equivalent of the cashier giving the cop the "high sign" from inside the bakery. You saw the "high sign," and completely made a point of ignoring it and drove away. Dino 11:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Your language is once again, excessively combative. To describe other editors as thugs and gangsters, as you do above, is a clear violation of civility, and your diagnosis of the debate you linked me as a shakedown is based, in my view, on your highly partisan interpretation of the subject. Here are the last three: [22], [23], [24]. What is the supposed problem with these edits? It is the normal process of taking a contentious paragraph to talk, and addressed in a perfectly civil manner. If Tony Soprano's thugs behaved with such civility I think his numbers game would be out of business in a week. Note that you reverted not BenBurch or FAAFA when re-inserting this but User:Calton, an editor in good standing with a wide range of articles edited and who I don't believe has a dog in this particular fight. Finally, I admonished both sides to leave the other alone. You violated that almost immediately, as I recall, and "leave him alone" does not mean "leave him to make contentious edits unchallenged". Guy ( Help!) 10:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
First you redefine "strong suggestion" as "final warning." Then you again redefine it to include a single post that offers a civil invitation to a civil debate. Then you again redefine it to exclude edit warring. Do you contemplate any further redefinitions, or is that your final answer? The two weeks you "strongly suggested" don't expire for another two days, so I'd like to know whether my next post is going to result in a permablock. Thanks. Dino 19:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Is this a reply to the abopve? If so it's a non-sequitur. You reverted Calton [25], so there were at least three other editors excluding the material against one - you - including it. That makes you the edit warrior. Pointing the finger at other editors does not change that. Guy ( Help!) 20:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
... so there were at least three other editors excluding the material against one ...
There was one editor excluding the material, sir. Count him. One. Then the Wikistalking gang jumped in. The disagreement on that page was later resolved without the participation of the Wikistalking gang, due to the fact that the Wikistalking gang had stopped participating. Other parties were able to work past their differences once those two agitators stopped agitating. Then the Wikistalking gang resumed their agitations, and I decided to stop participating on the page. But wherever I go, they will follow me and attempt to resume this edit war by challenging and reverting every edit I make. Dino 20:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If taken literally, this prohibition would mean that no party to this dispute could seek the help of an advocate from the wikipedia groups that exist to provide assistance in such circumstances. -- BenBurch 00:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Involvement of AMA in ArbCom cases tends to be a bit of a mixed blessing. Guy ( Help!) 10:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. DeanHinnen is still emailing at least one admin to solicit involvement in the dispute. Guy ( Help!) 20:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
One other thing. Why don't you show everyone the content of those e-mails? I sent you diffs of their posts and said, "You be the judge." That was the entire content of the most recent e-mails. It was your admonition that they were repeatedly violating, sir; and I had been blocked for a single harmless post. Should I have just ignored it? Dino 14:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Diffs are public, full text of emails is not. You say "you be the judge", but when I judge that you were in the wrong, engaging in a revert war against Calton, FAAFA and BenBurch, you seem to be unwilling to accept that. Rather, you ask that the other parties to the dispute be banned fomr the article where, as far as I can tell, you are the one perpetrating an edit war. Why would we do that? Guy ( Help!) 20:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Here. Click on this link. [26] No more excuses for not noticing it. I look forward to your response, sir. Dino 22:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:CANVAS suggests that limited solicitation is often appropriate or at least not inappropriate. Without judging whether Dean's solicitation was kosher, this remedy seems overbroad. TheronJ 15:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you. My inquiries are on the respective Talk pages and do not solicit anyone to join my side. I simply ask for their comments. This should be allowed since the parties I contacted had previous relevant experience. Generally these issues should not be discussed by complete strangers to the facts. Someone with previous experience with the facts doesn't need to start from Square One. Dino 17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I am getting confused here, is GUY "One of the parties" or "One of the Others", he keeps editing in both sections and I am just not sure anymore. It certainly seems that he sees himself as one of the Parties given the vehement way he lashes out at everything Dino tries to answer. If anyones language is once again, excessively combative I would have to say it is user GUY. This is another ridiculous section which by it's very definition is unenforceable. Any one of these editors can email other people off wiki and no one would be the wiser. Those editors with the longest edit histories are far more likely to have email addresses of other editors they have collaborated with in the past. Strike this one and move along. Nothing to see here. Mobile 01 Talk 13:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Sanction on Tbeatty requested (withdrawn)

Several Admins determined that User:Chicagostyledog was a probable sock of BrianFromPalatine. Tbeatty (who actually felt that he should be made wanted to be an Admin when he had under two months on Wiki and less than 600 edits link) took it upon himself to change that finding to being a sock of JoelHazaltine, then accused ME of false accusations, when I was agreeing with the consensus of several Admins. It has been TBeatty's stated goal since at least August to have me permenently banned, and this shows, yet again, that he will do anything to try and accomplish that.

He added the following to the evidence page.

1) "False accusations. [27] Followed by backtracking [28] [29]"

Can't you appoint a conservator for him - or something? A sanction? Thanks - FAAFA 08:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Response to Tbeatty's comments below. 'Baiting' (we're supposed to be 'nice' to sockpuppets now?) is very different than 'false accusations' which the RfAr still says said. I also take people for their word when they request that I be permenently banned. Update : I credit TBeatty for withdrawing his charge. - FAAFA 17:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Several Admins determined that User:Chicagostyledog was a probable sock of BrianFromPalatine.
It wasn't "several Admins," sir. It was actually just one: the ever present, ever petulant JzG. And he was dead wrong. The author was Joehazelton, as subsequent indignant posts by an anonymous IP user believed to be Joehazelton confirmed. Dino 17:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
As far as I can see, you are the only one who decided to bait the sockpuppet on an article talk page. As for admin, I asked a question about what was required to be an admin when I first started Wikipedia and was 11 months ago and was as simple question. I don't think I've ever claimed I 'should' be an admin as that is not what being an admin is about. You can look here if you think I ever put in for adminship. Second, I have no goal of getting you banned. I believe you have earned a block or sanction. I believe it is clear that you are a disruptive editor that needs a 'time out' of sorts so that you can reassess what the project is and how you relate to it. I also thought you deserved a community ban in August when you had 5 blocks in 8 days and numerous other warnings. I have not called for a community ban since then. Here, I presented a proposal to indefinitely ban you only to gauge the reaction as that is the upper most penalty. I believe a 3-6 month block and permanent parole is probably the most appropriate. Or just a permanent ban on political articles. -- Tbeatty 15:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
FAAFA has expressed here that accusation was in good faith. I have removed the section from my evidence. -- Tbeatty 17:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Call for immediate semi/full protection of Free Republic and related articles

1) User:BryanFromPalatine is recruiting Meatpuppets on Free Republic's message board www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795382/posts. I call for an injunction as follows: That Free Republic and any other related articles be immediately semi-protected, and at the sign of registered accounts editing the pages disruptively, the page be fully protected. SirFozzie 03:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
That thread was just pulled.

This thread has been pulled.

Pulled on 01/20/2008 5:09:41 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:

Eschoir ( talk) 14:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision Information

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is not a battleground

1) Wikipedia is not a battleground. It is not an appropriate venue for pursuing external disputes. Combatants in external disputes are expected to check their weapons at the desk and co-operate for the goal of building an encyclopaedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I concur with this entirely, and will seek to edit articles in as neutral a manner as I am able. -- BenBurch 00:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy ( Help!) 20:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Encyclopedia too. Of course. Tbeatty 02:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Obviously necessary here. Durova Charge! 07:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

No legal threats

2) Wikipedia has a policy which forbids legal threats. Legal threats, direct or implied, are not allowed.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Endorse' - This is one of the primary issues in this case. This case has been about the legal intimidation of Wikipedia from the time Dean started his career on Wikipedia. "Nice encyclopedia you have here. It would be a SHAME if something HAPPENED to it!" -- BenBurch 17:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy ( Help!) 20:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Durova Charge! 07:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

No legal threats? Look what landed in the e-mail box of American Politics Journal:

Clerk note: Identifying IP/e-mail traffic information redacted. This information can be e-mailed privately to the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad 19:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply

From: Dean Hinnen

American Politics Journal

I am a member of the legal team for Free Republic LLC and FreeRepublic.com. An article by TJ Walker that you have previously reproduced on this page is libelous. You are responsible for reproducing this libel and disseminating it to a much larger audience for many years, and it was removed very recently.

TJ Walker does not display this article on his website. The only place on the Internet where the article might be found is your website.

Let me clarify that while a few parts of the article are true, others are false and defamatory and we will not tolerate further defamation.

If you restore this article or any libelous part of it for public viewing, I will immediately recommend to our clients, Jim Robinson and John Robinson, that we should consider legal remedies against your site for this libel, dating back to the first day it appeared on your website.

Regards -- Dean Hinnen

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Apj-us-nyc ( talk • contribs)

  • I reformatted the above for readability and added the unsigned tag, just in case I get accused of having posted it myself. WOW I think that this ends the dispute here as Dean is pursuing a legal remedy and therefore can no longer edit Wikipedia - Unless I misunderstood that rule. I wonder how long before FAAFA and Myself get served process by this fellow? JzG should be safe because he is not an American. -- BenBurch 18:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Are you saying that this email was sent to wikipedia directly? I was under the impression that the no legal threats rule was in relation to threats made to editors directly on wikipedia discussion pages. If wikipedia itself contains a libelous entry then they may well expect to receive such letters from more people the Mr Dean Hinnen. However the letter shown does not appear to have been sent to wikipedia, so I am not sure exactly what your point it. Mobile 01 Talk 13:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Legal FYIs may be given, but must be worded in a civil manner

1) If an editor feels compelled to give FYIs about legal matters, civilly worded ones are acceptable. However, no such statement should be drafted or posted in a manner that can in any way be reasonably perceived as an attempt to intimidate another user.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 21:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
As a attorneys, User:BryanFromPalatine and whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen both know how to create a legal intimidation that is one tiny step removed from an actionable legal threat. Consequently, all of their "legal FYIs" may safely be assumed to be exactly that; An attempt at legal intimidation. I believe that User:BryanFromPalatine and whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen should be barred from even mentioning legal concerns on Wikipeda to any degree whatsoever. -- BenBurch 00:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
I am concerned by this, in that Dino's "legal FYIs", which he clearly considers were civilly worded, were interpreted by numerous admins as implied and credible legal threats, especially when combined with Dino's stated position as a legal representative of Free Republic. The correct channel for legal communications is Foundation, it is not acceptable to drop "legal FYIs" into discussions and expect editors to interpret their nuances. It's particularly unacceptable when an editor claims to be legal representative of an organisation. It's also problematic in that the implied threat was related to original research, and the demand for removal of content which was judged by others as correctly sourced. Guy ( Help!) 22:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
... were interpreted by numerous admins as implied and credible legal threats ...
Unreasonably interpreted, sir. At all times, I have made it absolutely crystal clear that I was seeking to PREVENT litigation. In light of the Siegenthaler case and online copyright infringement cases, it should be allowable to express concern about potentially libelous content, or content that may violate copyright law, without one of these two people pointing a finger and screeching, "That was a legal threat!"
The correct channel for legal communications is Foundation ...
Sure enough. That's where I started. I called Carolyn Doran at WMF. She advised me to open an account and remove the libelous material myself. Now I'm being dragged in front of ArbCom for it. Dino 00:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose current wording. Legal FYI's needn't be worded in a civil manner; they need be worded in a non-threatening manner. While Dean passes the first, he doesn't pass the latter. Picaroon
Then how should I have worded my legal FYI, sir? Some are quick to condemn an action as wrong, but seem incapable of proposing an action in the same circumstances that would be right. Propose an action that would have been right for me. Dino 02:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
By not opening your cyber-mouth and saying it at all. That is the only way that you could have done this and not violated WP:LEGAL. -- BenBurch 19:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
By not opening your cyber-mouth and saying it at all.
Thank you for that moment of candor. All that I have to do, in order to end any dispute with BenBurch, is just shut up and go away. Dino 20:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Worth a shot :-)
Dean, you should not have worded any "legal FYI" due to your conflict of interest and especially your claim to be a legal representative of Free Republic. If you have legal issues that need to be raised, take them up with Foundation. Implied legal threats based on unprovable original research contradicted by cited sources does not come under the heading of "legal FYIs", and a lot of people, most of whom were previously uninvolved, agreed that your "legal FYI" was an implied threat. You can't make comments asserting that you want to PREVENT litigation when you claim to be one of the legal team who would presumably pursue such litigation. That is an implied legal threat. I suggest you simply withdraw this section. Also, please drop the courtroom language and the RED SHOUTING. This is not a court of law. Guy ( Help!) 21:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Any statement, no matter how politely worded, having the effect of saying, "change this article or you may be subject to legal action" is prohibited on Wikipedia. You can edut the article through normal processes, or you can pursue legal issues through the Foundation attorney, but you can't do both. Thatcher131 14:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I'll say this once more. I called Carolyn Doran at WMF on Monday morning, January 15, and raised my concerns about libel in Free Republic. She said that I should open a Wikipedia account and remove the libelous material myself. When admins say "Take your legal concerns to the Foundation," and a Foundation employee says, "No no no, just open an account and do it yourself," I open an account and do it myself. In retaliation for that, I'm being dragged in front of ArbCom. But the libelous material was removed, and so there is no danger of litigation. My attempts to communicate these facts, in as civil, amicable and non-threatening language as one could imagine, are being falsely portrayed as legal threats. Dino 14:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
That's not quite the same thing. Do you have any idea how many baseless legal threats are made to the Foundation office in an average week? If there is a credible problem, Foundation steps in. If Foundation says "go do it yourself" that may be interpreted as "go do it yourself and see how well your reasoning stands up" - which in this case it did not. The correct channel for legal communications is Foundation, if Foundation choose not to take action but refer it back to editorial judgement then we can be reasonably sure that the concern is not seen as credible. Plus, Foundation counsel is Brad anyway. Guy ( Help!) 12:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Like all of your other perceptions of this case, you have comprehensively ignored a salient fact that cuts the legs out from under your argument. In this case, Carolyn Doran didn't just tell me "go and do it yourself and see how well your reasoning stands up." First she apparently contacted TJ Walker herself, then she removed the libelous material herself. No, she is not WMF legal counsel; she is the Chief Operating Officer. You have conveniently failed to notice that. Under those circumstances, we can be reasonably sure that the concern was seen as credible, sir.
You will notice that most parties have been discreetly silent since that day. TJ Walker and APJ are both completely silent despite FAAFA's repeated inquiries. WMF is also silent. I'll say nothing about the reasons for their continued silence. But you should try drawing some conclusions that don't proceed from an assumption that I'm lying, and that TJ Walker not only wrote the article, but told the truth in that article. Start from the opposite assumption, and try to figure out why they're all so silent. Dino 15:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Have you noticed how many people have been convinced by your protestation that a member of the legal team posting "I'm just trying to stop you being sued" when they would be doing the suing is not an implied legal threat? And how many people have been convinced by your unverifiable original research? My count of people you've convinced to date is: none at all. Drop the stick and step away from the horse. Guy ( Help!) 16:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Partial Support Firstly I see nothing wrong with pointing out possible consequences of placing libelous material on wiki. How that is done is another question. I would think something along the lines of "Reverting this due to possible libel" as OK, talk page discussion note along the lines of "I think this information should be removed as it could possibly be libelous" would be OK. I don't fully follow Dino explanation for the events though, I fht efoundation member asked him to remove the offending material then for him to remove it was fine. Why the legal FYI was required is a mystery to me. A simple note in the discussion page stating he was removing it under advice from the foundation would have sufficed. GUY, your sarcasm doesnt help the situation. I would suggest you stop trying to provoke Dino and stick to the issues at hand. Mobile 01 Talk 13:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Selected portions of emails from APJ

"3) Now for a hint at things to come. Have you had a look at the "deleted" APJ page? It "looks" blank -- but check out the header (in your Web browser, select View->View Page Source [or similar command]). Obviously, Dean failed to check it out -- along with about 1/3 of our pre-2001 content, which is off the site, slugged with white pages, and being converted to the new content management system we launched on January 8. (Converting 8,500 articles takes time)." Link (I pointed this out the first day - invisible text and META tags have been adjudicated to be the legal equivalent of visible text)

"Right now, we're not uploading old web pages (pre-Oct. 2006) until a major bug with our new CMS is quashed. [personal info redacted] and our Webmaster are hoping to have that issue resolved by the middle of the week.There are a couple of other things that need to be done before the DeathThreat story, which was in fact superseded by a longer story, is restored." (full emails available to admins)- FAAFA 22:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Important update

The following text was added to the 'blank page' in the last few weeks. (since Dino made his 'claims') "A new, updated edition of this article will be appearing at American Politics Journal's new database-driven site during February 2007." same META info from Jan 16

This blank page was (until just recently) the location of the 1999 TJ Walker article entitled "Is the FreeRepublic.Com Really DeathThreat.Com? " An archived version is available here - FAAFA 22:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

"A new, updated edition of this article will be appearing at American Politics Journal's new database-driven site during February 2007."
Take a look at the calendar, gentlemen. Today is March 1. Where is FAAFA with another important update? Dino 17:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Frankly, this has no bearing on the case. At best, this indicates that the TJ Walker article was authentic. Even so, using the article was inappropriate (in my opinion) for two reasons; first, I do not think TJWalker.com constitutes a reliable source, and being republished elsewhere does not necessarily enhance its reliability, and second, it is an attempt to smear Free Republic through guilt be association. Ultimately this is a content issue, and the arbitration committee deals with behavior. Thatcher131 00:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
There is no attempt to 'smear' Free Republic. Numerous RS V sources have documented their death threats. This is a notable part of their history, and I am even the editor who added the qualifiers 'handful' and 'small minority' (of members). I ask that you stop your own smears against the editors who have tried only to write a balanced encylopedic article. Thanks. - FAAFA 02:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Sir, your entire participation here and at Free Republic is peppered with efforts, either accidental or deliberate, to blur some very important distinctions. Every public-access discussion board of a political nature is at risk of occasionally getting death threats against public officials. You have been very diligent about searching them out for Free Republic, and you've gone all the way back to 1999 to find them, sir; but your friends and comrades at Democratic Underground experienced them as well, just last October.
The important issue, sir, is the reaction of the administrators of these discussion boards when such death threats get posted. The purported "TJ Walker" article (self-published, then republished at an extremely partisan left-wing website that takes great pride in ridiculing Bush and his "neo-con cabal") is the only source on the Internet that claims such threats were left undisturbed for months at a time.
That claim is false, sir. It is libelous. And you persistently blur the distinction between "Death threats were posted briefly by vandals, then deleted by FR management" (negative, but accurate) and "Death threats were allowed to stand unmodified for months at a time" (libelous).
Free Republic removes any death threat instantly and bans the author of any such threat permanently. That has been the policy since Day One, and it has been rigorously enforced. If only policies against harassment and Wikistalking were enforced as rigorously here. Dino 16:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Even in this proceeding Hinnen has repeatedly been less than honest. "Death threats were allowed to stand unmodified for months at a time" "Is the FreeRepublic.Com Really DeathThreat.Com? - July 06, 1999" Archive Date of threat June 10, 1999 - FaAfA (yap) 17:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment : DeanHinnen wrote : "I'll say this once more. I called Carolyn Doran at WMF on Monday morning, January 15, and raised my concerns about libel in Free Republic. She said that I should open a Wikipedia account and remove the libelous material myself. When admins say "Take your legal concerns to the Foundation," and a Foundation employee says, "No no no, just open an account and do it yourself," I open an account and do it myself." Except that's not what happened. Hinnen coerced Ms. Doran to edit for him by use of overt or implied legal threat so realistic that she removed her name from a list of WMF employees even before she edited the FR article. Hinnen only opened an account after Doran's edits were deleted by an Admin suspecting impersonation. - FaAfA 22:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Harassment

1) Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Derived from WP:STALK. Dino 21:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Intent to cause negative emotion is unprovable, and in my case I assert that this was never my intention. In addition one would have to be quite a "nervous nelly" to allow oneself to be upset by the mere presence of another editor on an article not matter what one thinks of that person. -- BenBurch 00:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Intent to cause negative emotion is unprovable ...
Then no case of harassment would ever be provable. And yet there are people who prove it beyond a reasonable doubt on a regular basis, sir. The intent may be reasonably inferred from the circumstances. Actions speak louder than words. Dino 17:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Harrassment tends to involve rather more than polite comments on Talk pages in support of the removal of text by other editors, so the Roksam article clearly is not harassment. Harassment has occurred in the matter of the various vexatious processes that led to this case being brought. Guy ( Help!) 21:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
"Polite comments"?!?!?!? Here. Click on this link. [30] No more excuses for not noticing it. I look forward to your response, sir. Dino 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
That was polite to anybody who has an intact sense of humor. Of course I fully expect that you will willfully construe any attempt at humor as an attack and incivility. It's your job. -- BenBurch 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Context is important, wouldn't you agree? At the time of that post, the author had already received a final warning for Wikistalking. His Wikistalking had already been the subject of WP:ANI, an admin named JzG had admonished him to leave me alone for two weeks, and ArbCom proceedings had been initiated against him for Wikistalking me. Are you denying that context is important in assessing whether it's humor or mockery? Dino 14:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
An outrage! Pure unbridled barbarity from a barbaric and barbarous barbarian! Ban him! Now! No more delays! - FAAFA
Dino, you live in a glass house. Put down the stone. Guy ( Help!) 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
All three involved parties (four if you include Bryan) seem to have violated this, so it's fair to include it. Guy ( Help!) 22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Now I'm confused again, Dinos comment "an admin named JzG had admonished him to leave me alone for two weeks" seems to be addressed to user GUY, I though user GUY and user JzG were the same user. Anyway, as my dad used to say, "You Three need your heads banged together" Frankly the three of you, four if you count GUY/JzG are behaving like school children. I wanna slap you all upside your head (I think thats the correct American phrase). I'm only a third way through this arbitration page and I already think your all crazy. Grrrrrr!!! Mobile 01 Talk 13:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Wikistalking

1) The term "Wikistalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. Penalties for Wikistalking can be severe, up to and including a permanent ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Derived from WP:STALK. Dino 21:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Non-sequitur. No evidence has been presented of vexatious editing as described above. Guy ( Help!) 21:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Come on GUY, how naive do you think we are. One only has to look at Dinos contribs and then check the dates of the edits made to the same article by Ben and FAAFA to see exactly what he is saying. Did you steal the blinkers off that dead horse you were talking about earlier? Mobile 01 Talk 14:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Gang tactics

1) The term "gang tactics" has been coined to describe a situation where two or more contributors collaborate to harass other contributors, who are outnumbered by the harassers. The fact that the victims are outnumbered increases the effect of harassment and intimidation exponentially. Penalties for using gang tactics are therefore increased exponentially.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 21:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
This term has been "coined" by Dino, Bryan, and the contents of Bryan's hosiery drawer. The fact that they have not succeeded in recruiting allies is not through any lack of effort on their part. I believe this is without merit. Guy ( Help!) 22:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If you were on the receiving end of relentless, two-against-one harassment, baiting, mockery and edit warring day after day and week after week, without any admin powers and with admins doing little or nothing to intervene except issuing warnings that are ignored like the tall stacks of previous warnings they received, I think you'd be coining a phrase or two of your own, sir. Like this one. Dino 01:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The most recent stray sock in the drawer? -- BenBurch 19:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
No, it's the most recent attempt to frame me using an open proxy, exactly like all the other attempts to frame me using open proxies (and post the home address and telephone number of BFP, again using an open proxy). Dino 12:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Evidence it's an open proxy? Also, the only people I've seen use the words "street gang" are you and Bryan's socks. Given your obvious fondness for The Sopranos, not evidently shared by others, it's more likely that this is more of the usual crap. Guy ( Help!) 16:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
User:Fensteren was fond of that term too. What a coincidence! Street Gang - FAAFA 09:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This might be ok with some refinement. Some improper conduct (incivility and harassment come to mind) are worse when multiple people engage in them. Other conduct (such as reverting edits) isn't necessarily worse. If four people are reverting your edits, that may be "consensus" rather than "edit warring." TheronJ 21:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
TheronJ, thanks for your constructive input. The posted definition at the top of this section only encompasses harassment by two or more users, not edit warring. In the post before yours, I was citing edit warring in addition to "harassment, baiting [and] mockery." A pattern of misconduct well within the definition; even though the edit warring factor doesn't fall within the definition, the rest of it does. The edit warring merely reflects the motive for the harassment, baiting and mockery. Dino 23:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Two is not "multiple" by any rational definition. Two editors is not a "gang" by any rational definition. The problem here is that the Hinnen family have failed to recruit even one other editor to their cause. Just one recruit would have evened the balance. It's not BenBurch or FAAFA's faul that the Hinnens have been unpersuasive. Guy ( Help!) 11:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
No - You're wrong. Completely wrong. Tbeatty was more than ready to join their cause, defend their actions - even sockpuppetry, and even go so far as to waste all of our time and what little good faith we may have had left with such innanities as proposing that DeanHinnen may have spoken to Chuck Norris playing Walker, Texas Ranger - not author TJ Walker. Why? Cause I'm an EVIL 'LIBTARD' who must be defeated at all costs! - FAAFA 08:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Is this humor? Certainly not humour, as I don't get it. Tbeatty has a problem with you, largely caused by your own actions in the past, but I don't see him showing much support for the sock farm, only opposition to you, personally. As a long-standing editor I think Tbeatty probably shares the community's strong dislike for abusive sock puppetery and block evasion, since they undermine our ability to keep this madhouse going. Guy ( Help!) 09:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
'Walker - Texas Ranger?' It's not humour or humor. See comments Well..... excuuuse me! in Contacts made to TJ Walker and WMF not considered. After Dino's TJ Walker claim was proved false, Dino actually admitted that he had coereced Carolyn to editing on his behalf, and Dino refused to address the TJ Walker issue, and 'Dino' claimed that he was was the brother of notorious puppeteer, Tbeatty still backed him, and excoriated me to leave him alone and let him edit in peace, etc. (diffs coming) Tbeatty was not troubled one bit by any of those actions by Dino. And if specious charges of 'Wikistalking' are going to thrown around, Tbeatty arrived at the Peter Roskam article at the same time as Ben Burch, to help (IMO) Dino fight his battles. These Wikistalking charges are absurd, and without any merit. I can point to dozens of articles where members of the old Conspiracy Noticeboard (including 3 Admins / 1 now an ex-Admin) all followed each other around, arrived en masse, and used 'Gang Tactics' (Dino™) to sway consensus, get article deleteds, etc. Once my good bud MortyD (diametrically opposed politics - but we get along well) edited the article (or talk page) of Project Megiddo within minutes of me creating it, and another warrior, Crockspot, arrived a few minutes later! Did I complain about 'Wikistalking'?? No! I actually back-handingly complimented MortyD on his 'Wikistalking' skills! Every high-profile 'political' editor starts following others around. I have no doubt that dozens of people are following CyberAnth around for instance. That's the price any 'political editor' with strongly held views pays. Dino thinks he should be able to WP:OWN (as far as Ben and I are concerned) any article he edits? Prepostrous! (are you guys actually suggesting that I drop my dramatic use of bolded text? Damn! Silly me! I was about to start adding colors! (earth tones) I tried to add blinking text once and Wiki doesn't allow it ! (some would shout 'Stalinists' over this denial of my Free Speech (blinking text) Rights ;-) - FAAFA 23:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Without merit as per Guy's comment ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I don't even know if it's a proposal or a statement. It doesnt actually ask for anything. It just states that a term has been coined. OK I agree, a term has been coined. I think the edits of both Ben and FAAFA speak for themselves. They have most certainly followed Dino to article and edited them after Dino had left the building. GUY(JzG) even states (above) that they work together, excusing their behaviour by saying it's not their fault Dino couldn't anyone to support his views. I can understand Dinos frustration here, no one likes to be the victim of the schoolyard bully, especially when he has his friends standing right there supporting that behaviour. Mobile 01 Talk 14:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

POV pushing

1) The term "POV pushing" has been coined to describe the practice of editing articles and participating on Talk pages in a manner that favors one point of view (i.e. conservative, feminist, pro-choice, socialist) over one or more opposing points of view. POV pushing is a violation of WP:NPOV. POV pushing also leads to other violations of Wikipedia policy such as WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:V and WP:RS.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 22:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
I disagree with the first sentence. POV pushing refers to acting so as to advance a certain point of view. It can occur in any namespace. The second and third sentences, however, are correct. Picaroon 01:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I have added the word "articles" to the first sentence for clarification. Sometimes a first draft can be a bit ambiguous. Thanks for your constructive input. Dino 12:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I strongly disagree with this wording. First, as Picaroon states, it applies to any namespace. Second, it violates only WP:NPOV, whether other policies are violated is dependent on the way the dispute is pursued, and it is possible to violate all of these without POV-pushing, there is no causal link. Third, editing in favour of a given viewpoint is not necessarily POV-pushing - if the aim is to insert balance or to remove imbalance then an openly acknowledged editorial bias is not problematic provided the result is neutrality in the article. POV-pushing might describe, for example, DeanHinnen's recent edits in respect of Peter Roskam, but those with the opposite viewpoint, having made their case in a civil manner, would not normally be accused of POV-pushing. I propose instead... Guy ( Help!) 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
... if the aim is to insert balance or to remove imbalance then an openly acknowledged editorial bias is not problematic provided the result is neutrality ...
That is exactly what I've been trying to do, sir. And that is exactly what I've done with the Peter Roskam article. I've organized a new consensus and that article is substantially improved. I'd like to be allowed to proceed with other articles on political topics that show a distinct left-wing bias, without being stalked and reverted every millimeter of the way. Dino 12:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
So you say. But your edit war on Peter Roskam involves other users not involved in this dispute, and your assessment of what constitutes balance goes against the view of long-standing contributors who (unlike you) have no overt bias and do not appear to be friends of the subject. Guy ( Help!) 17:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It is always "the other side" that POV pushes... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
In this case, look at the January 7 version of Free Republic. It's a hatchet job. Then look at Democratic Underground. It's an advertising brochure. Here we have two large political talkboards that occasionally have death threats posted. They are similarly situated, but one's a hatchet job, and the other is an advertising brochure.
Now look at the February 5 version of Peter Roskam. It's a hatchet job. Then look at Melissa Bean. It's an advertising brochure. Again, here we have two similarly situated subjects of encyclopedia articles. They are both Congressmen from the Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, very early in their careers, with no criminal record and no investigations by the Ethics Committee. But one's a hatchet job, and the other is an advertising brochure. While you're at it, compare it with Frank Ballance, another Congressman very early in his career, who was sentenced to four years in a federal prison for illegally diverting federal funds to his own pockets. The article is actually far shorter than the February 5 version of Peter Roskam and contains far less criticism.
I will say again, sir, that I realize conservative politicians and organizations have warts and blemishes; that I certainly do not want a whitewash job; that all I want are balanced NPOV articles about them; but there has been an effort, before I ever got here, to put those warts and blemishes under a microscope and make their Wikipedia articles all about the warts and blemishes. Dino 17:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Hatchet job, n: article on a subject I like which does nor say what I want it to. Advertising brochure, n: article on a subject I don't like which does not say what I want it to. {{ sofixit}} would apply if it were not for the fact that I have yet to see a mainspace edit from you that was not obviously and substantially biased. Guy ( Help!) 17:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Sir, I will be more than happy to leave it to the Arbitrators to decide whether the January 7 version of Free Republic is a hatchet job compared to Democratic Underground, and whether the February 5 version of Peter Roskam is a hatchet job compared to Melissa Bean. They are free to employ their own definitions of the terms "hatchet job" and "advertising brochure." Just print out these versions of the articles on a laser printer, lay them on a table side by side, and compare. I am 100% confident about the result, sir. Dino 19:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't see what this topic has to do with the arbitration of Free Republic. The article by it's very subject material will always be a topic for POV pushing. Getting the right balance between the apposing view points will lead to the article in general being NPOV. This was recently explained to me by a mediator. Mobile 01 Talk 14:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

POV pushing

1a) The term POV-pushing has been coined to describe the aggressive promotion of a certain point of view in a manner which seeks to give that point of view undue weight particularly in article space. POV-pushing can take place in any name space if it still seeks to promote the view in article space - an example might be templates which serve to overemphasise minority viewpoints, such as conspiracy theories.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed as an alternative to DeanHinnen's version above. Guy ( Help!) 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Some combination of the two versions might work out. Perhaps your version, with citation of policy violations as described in my version, plus the examples from my version (conservative, feminist, anti-abortion, socialist). Maybe the word "militant" should be worked in there somewhere. I'll rewrite my version later today by incorporating elements of yours. Thanks for your constructive input. Dino 12:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Fallacy of the false middle. The above is my understanding as a long-standing admin, your version was written by you, a new user, to underpin a dispute in which you are involved. The above is close enough, and if any other established editors want to refine it they are welcome. A "compromise" between mostly wrong and mostly right is unlikely to be completely right. Guy ( Help!) 12:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Conflicts of interest

1) Editors with a conflict of interest are required to be circumspect in respect of those articles where their conflict of interest applies.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I would go so far as to suggest that editors with an obvious COI should be prohibited from editing articles that are the subject of their COI, although they should be allowed to participate on Talk pages and in forming a consensus if their COI is clearly explained. Decisions by others to participate with such editors in forming consensus should be fully informed decisions. Participation on Talk pages by editors with COIs can provide valuable perspectives in the development of articles, point the way to research resources and be helpful in other ways. Dino 22:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
On the Peter Roskam talk page : "I have said many times that I will continue to help with this campaign for Pete, and I intend to go full blast on the last 72-hour push." Dino 13:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC) [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1726044/posts link] and diff - FAAFA 02:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
FAAFA persists in deliberately distorting that post. I have never given any indication that I was that person posting on the Free Republic thread, or anyone else on the FR threads I've linked. I simply posted it as an example of an FR member, or "Freeper," participating in the Roskam campaign. I've already explained that to FAAFA. Now he's misrepresenting it to the Arbitration Committee as well. Dino 11:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed, per WP:COI. Guy ( Help!) 22:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

No original research

1) The dispute started when Dean Hinnen, claiming to be acting as legal counsel a legal representative of Free Republic, stated that he had contacted TJ Walker and received the assurance that Walker had not written a piece attributed to him, and previously published under Walker's name at Walker's website, duly attributed as such. Hinnen further claimed that this was libellous. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia's policy on original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I have never claimed to be legal counsel for Free Republic. I have claimed to be part of their legal team. This distinction is an important one. Furthermore, I made that contact prior to opening an account at Wikipedia and I was not subject to Wikipedia rules and policies at the time. Dino 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Semantic hair-splitting. The factthat you claim to be part of their legal team is not disputed, and the meat of the finding is that the claim was unverifiable original research, which it clearly is. Guy ( Help!) 13:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It is not "semantic hair-splitting," sir. It is an important distinction. When you say in your Finding of Fact that I have claimed "to be acting as legal counsel for Free Republic," when I never made such a claim and I've repeatedly pointed out that I am just a volunteer for the legal team, you've made a false Statement of Fact in ArbCom proceedings. Refactor it. Stop making excuses and misdirecting. Act like an administrator for a change, rather than a petulant child who has been erroneously given the powers of an administrator. Dino 14:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This is not a court of law. You claim to be part of their legal team. That, as far as we are concerned, means you are representing them in a legal capacity. The precise nature of this representation is not particularly relevant to the fact that your contact with TJ Walker is unverifiable original research. "That man in the brown jacket mugged the woman" "It's beige, therefore you must acquit". See? Guy ( Help!) 12:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
DeanHinnen actually wrote:"Furthermore, I made that contact prior to opening an account at Wikipedia and I was not subject to Wikipedia rules and policies at the time." Comment ? Wow... just wow - FAAFA 08:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support -- BenBurch 18:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed Guy ( Help!) 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Hair spltting definitions aside, WP:NOR is policy. The intent of the claims was clearly to create an impression of legal weight to bolster original research. That is unacceptable. Durova Charge! 07:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I may be missing something here, but my understanding of the policy on Original Research is that it relates to information placed within articles. Did Dino make this assertion within the article or only as a comment on the discussion page. If it was only on the discussion page, I fail to see how this policy applies. Mobile 01 Talk 14:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Unblock-en-l decisions provide finality

1) The consensus decisions of the informal committee, Unblock-en-l, provide a reasonable degree of finality concerning issues such as whether a particular contributor is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Any contributor benefiting from such a decision may rely on it. Other contributors must respect it, and admins will enforce it. In the absence of any strong new evidence contradicting such a decision, any suggestion by a contributor or administrator that the decision was improper will be treated as a violation of WP:NPA and will be subject to blocking and/or suspension or termination of admin powers.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. If this had been in effect when I returned from Unblock-en-l, a lot of this acrimony could have been avoided. Instead, opposing parties and even a couple of admins have been free to openly challenge the Unblock-en-l ruling, in the absence of sufficient evidence to reasonably justify such a challenge. Dino 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This is just not true. Unblock-en-l is a mailing list, and the people there are just regular users. They do not possess the ability to make any decisions there that have more authority then if they make them on wiki. Prodego talk 23:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
In this particular case, Prodego, the decision overturning your lightning reflexes was made unanimously by three admins. No "regular users" were involved except me. Nevertheless, even if the decision involves some "regular users," it should have a reasonable degree of finality. Otherwise, anyone can challenge it for any reason, or for no reason at all. This leads to endless warfare, as you can see. Without a very good reason (well founded in new evidence) that such a decision was wrong, it must be respected. Dino 23:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I do not mean in this particular case. I mean that, in general, decisions made on Unblock-en-l have no more authority then one made on wiki. I have already apologized for any mistake I made in blocking you, and when I did not feel comfortable unblocking you, I directed you to unblock-en-l. Prodego talk 23:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Prodego, I have already accepted your apology and I don't harbor any bad feelings about that. I didn't mean to convey the impression that I do. But the Unblock-en-l procedure can be very slow, laborious and frustrating. Once it has been successfully concluded, it should be worth something more than "Okay, run along and happy editing. But you're on your own." Otherwise, why bother? Dino 23:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I see your frustration, but as one of the first people to join Unblock-en-l, and one of the list moderators there (and active in moderating, in fact, I approved your message :-)) I can tell you, as Yamla and Lar did, that it represents only the view of those who talk to you, a narrow few. It does not represent an overall consensus, but it serves to review blocks and unblock users affected by collateral damage. It is usually a quick procedure, with just 2 or 3 e-mails, but your's was a more complex case. In your case it worked well, but it is certainly not binding. Prodego talk 01:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
I wasn't going to say anything more in this case than I already had when it was proposed, but I really don't think this principle has any merit at all. The unblock list is a tool for users to appeal blocks, and for interested admins to make decisions about the merits of those blocks. If admins make a decision to unblock as a result of postings to this list, they are just as likely to be overturned as if the decision had been made after comments on AN/I and certainly, have not made any sort of final statement on the matter. It is my view that Dean has advanced this theory before, using his unblock as some sort of claim to carte blanche approval of his activities, and this line of theorising needs to be squelched. ++ Lar: t/ c 03:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Then the alternative is constant warfare. When BB & FAAFA saw doubts expressed about Unblock-en-l results (by admins, for God's sake), it emboldened them to renew their false accusations, and what their "attorney" JzG wouldn't hesitate to describe as "vexatious process" if I had done it. A lot of people consider being called a "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet" an insult. You saw the results of the refusal to accept Unblock-en-l's ruling as binding. Can you propose an alternate resolution? Dino 15:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
A few points.
  • First, the unblock-en-l driven decision by one admin to unblock you (in my view that decision was not a ruling, it was a decision to unblock by one admin, based on input from a few admins... unblock-en-l is not a court that issues rulings, it's a tool to allow editors who have been blocked to appeal that block and for admins to, of their own volition, decide to unblock), does not establish precedent, does not establish bonafides and it is not some sort of binding finding Please be minding that, instead of winding us all up about it.
  • Second, ... an "alternate resolution"??? Well, after a certain point in disputes, when both sides are conflicting to the point that it's interfering with our work here, we really don't care who's actually right or who's wrong. We will tend to block both sides for acting like prats, and let calmer heads do the corrective work (if any) that is needed on the articles. That's the remedy I think arbcom ought to carry out... block the lot of you and be done, because the lot of you are wasting a lot of precious volunteer time and effort that could be used much more productively. As Charles M. said... we are not here to be another place to carry out longrunning battles started elsewhere. If you will allow me my own POV for a minute (which POV is already abundantly clear on my user page), I say a pox on both your houses, DU and FR, you're both amazingly clueless in your beliefs, and both amazingly wrong about what actually needs fixing in the US, and your childish warfare, whereever I see it, but especially here, is very tiresome and beside the point. We are here to build an encyclopedia, nothing more. We are not another battleground for you. Take your advocacy (and especially your rules lawyering and stridency) elsewhere. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC) PS, other readers, sorry for taking on the bad habit of overbolding and overitalicising, and most especially: sorry for letting my POV out for a stroll for a minute. :) But it beats swearing. ++Lar reply
Speaking as a list administrator for unblock-en-l, you don't seem to have an understanding of the function of that list. It is not an administrative body empowered to issue rulings or findings, it merely acts as a conduit for blocked users to request assistance and serves the same function as a Wikipedia noticeboard. Any administrator who performs an action based upon an unblock-en-l request is merely acting within the normal scope of their duties as an administrator and such actions do not have any more special significance than any other administrative action.
Deciding who is or is not a sockpuppet should be outside the scope of unblock-en-l in any case, and really is an issue for Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. Gamaliel 20:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
In this case, RFCU produced a false positive. It does not take into account the possibility of two users editing from the same IP address, such as family members (in this case), or co-workers, or students at the same school. In cases like those, Unblock-en-l is better than RFCU any day of the week. Dino 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
RFCU was right in all positive findings INCLUDING "you". As you have admitted here, all of these socks, yourself included, were created at Bryan's behest to, in his words "Pursue the Cabal". This is the very definition of the Wikipedia term of art "Meatpuppet". You are a meat puppet of BryanFromPalatine, and consequently have no right to be here whatsoever. -- BenBurch 22:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
... were created at Bryan's behest ...
Please post your proof of this. Can you prove that Bryan instructed his brother-in-law, his father-in-law and I to create accounts and "Pursue the Cabal"? Would that be in the form of a copy of his written instruction or a taped conversation of some sort? Dino 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Per previous ArbCom rulings, we are allowed to apply the duck test. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then for our purposes it may be treated as a duck. we do not draw any distinction between a banned editor posting, and a banned editor dictating posts to his family members. When these posts are found by CheckUser to come from the same computer, we generally wash our hands of the user. Guy ( Help!) 13:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Guy, first let me say that I apologize for having beaten the dead horse for so long. I know that this has all taken far too much of many people's time, including yours. My incivility and the number of formal complaints I have filed in this matter have largely stemmed from my conviction that circumstances are just as you now understand them to be; an army of puppets. All I wanted (and posted on his user page at the end of several of his blocks) was for Bryan/Dean/DP1978/et. al. to stop using puppets and to engage constructively and collaboratively as an editor of the Free Republic article. I believed then and I still believe that I can be a fair editor of that article and can work with my Conservative counterparts to make that a Good Article. In fact there are several editors I have worked well with there. But when I know I am dealing with a rule-breaker, I have a very hard time assuming good faith or being civil. Especially when that rule-breaker is combative and incivil and has a smug demeanor. This is finally why I have recused myself from Free Republic - I could not continue to be an effective editor there and remain even marginally civil to the Hinnen Family sock drawer. -- BenBurch 14:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
As Lar says, this is simply false. Regardless of the ins and outs of this case, unblock-l discussions do not provide finality. Finality is only available from Foundation, I'd say, since all other decisions can be appealed. Guy ( Help!) 22:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Do you understand the difference between "finality" and "a reasonable degree of finality"? Dino 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes. Do you understand the difference between a couple of list participants agreeing to assume good faith in the face of strong evidence to the contrary, and a community consensus? The claim you make in this section is false. Unblock-l provides no degree of finality whatsoever, unblock-l is simply a means for blocked editors to request unblocking, it has very few active participants (nothing like the number that come to the admin noticeboards) and - the killer punch here - even the people who were active in that discussion have repeatedly stated that it is not to be interpreted as any kind of community consensus. Which makes it look not just false, but wilfully false. I suggest you withdraw this section. Guy ( Help!) 13:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
In case it is not already abundantly clear from my remarks so far, I suggest you withdraw this section as well, as it is entirely without merit. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Without merit as per Lar and Guy's comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I don't know about "without merit", but it's certainly wrong. Arbcom, OFFICE, and Jimbo have always clearly "outranked" unblock-en-l determinations... Georgewilliamherbert 02:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If they had gone to ArbCom with their suspicions, or WP:OFFICE, or Jimmy Wales, that would have been acceptable. Instead, they pretended that Unblock-en-l never happened. They continued making their false accusations. Nobody should have to put up with that, gentlemen. There's a basic principle of human relations that was violated there; the violation colored everything that took place afterward; and if there isn't a policy or guideline or previous ArbCom ruling that covers it, then there should be. Dino 22:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. As one of the more active volunteers on unblock-en-l, I want to be absolutely clear that I do not believe this is a good idea. Those of us on unblock-en-l are just as likely as any other admin to make a mistake (positively or negatively). Most of us, including specifically myself, do not have checkuser access and as such, can only make good-faith attempts to resolve issues. Unblock-en-l is best suited for simple cases. A decision of a volunteer on unblock-en-l should be respected as (almost certainly) made in good faith, but we may not have all the information available to us at the time, we normally don't have access to checkuser information, and we can, have, and will continue to make mistakes. In my opinion, nobody on unblock-en-l expects decisions made there to have any more weight than decisions made off unblock-en-l. In summary, I would expect decisions made on unblock-en-l to be treated as made in good faith but with no more standing than decisions made off unblock-en-l. More specifically, ArbCom, WP:Office, or Jimmy Wales decisions would (as far as I can see) always trump those made on unblock-en-l. -- Yamla 04:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Banned users

1) Editing on behalf of banned users, or acting as proxy for them, is not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I suggest that acting as a proxy for a blocked user in dispute resolution should be allowed. Dino 23:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Why? Banned users are banned for a reason. Every single banned user has had chances to stop their misbehavior prior to being banned, and Bryan, like every other banned user, let these chances fly by. Picaroon 01:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy ( Help!) 23:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Hinnen wrote: I think my brother Bryan would like to have a piece of that action - FAAFA 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I believe that comment was in response to a proposed off-wiki debate between BenBurch and VoiceOfReason. Not sure how it relates to being a proxy. -- Tbeatty 04:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
OFF Wiki??? Why not have the debate on his (Bryan's) Talk page? Yeah - sure. - FAAFA 05:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, response to off-wiki debate. -- Tbeatty 05:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Yeah, right. Perhaps you need to look up the word 'proxy'? "I think my brother Bryan would like to have a piece of that action. Why not have the debate on his Talk page? Bring your little friend." Dino 16:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC) - FAAFA 07:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Actually it was DeanHinnen's posting of a "certification" by proxy on the RfC against BenBurch that i was referring to. This is completely unequivocal: Dean posting on behalf of banned Bryan. Guy ( Help!) 09:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. You'd think this would be obvious. Picaroon 01:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Durova Charge! 07:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I feel that acting as a proxy should be allowed as long as this is clearly stated as the reason. Especialy in resolution cases. That being said, if the blocked user has gone away, I cant see the point. Mobile 01 Talk 00:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material

1) Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Text from WP:BLP; might warrant trimming down a bit. Kirill Lokshin 06:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Excellent. And may I add that when BFP was blocked for 24 hours in December, it was for a 3RR violation when he was trying to remove derogatory material. It is alleged that in response to that improper 3RR block, he created his first sockpuppets. Dino 11:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
So, you stipulate that these were indeed socks? -- BenBurch 00:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
What part of "It is alleged" do you not understand, Ben? Dino 20:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The devil is in the detail. Bryan was removing sourced criticism which was the subject of ongoing debate on Talk, that is considered vandalism. The solution to this is not to revert war, it's to call the cavalry. Guy ( Help!) 12:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You have consistently described "calling the cavalry" as "vexatious process" when one side does it, but not the other (even when the other side does it far more frequently). Would you care to explain that, sir? Dino 19:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
There is a difference between a civil request for assistance in removing defamatory material, and an overt attempt to get editors blocked when you are in a ocntent dispute. Seems to me that those independent parties that reviewed these edits were not persuaded of Bryan's case. Nor does the enjoinder to remove poorly sourced negative material act as a blanket permission to expunge all criticism from articles on clearly controversial subjects. Guy ( Help!) 11:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
"All criticism" was never "expunged" in any of the articles we've discussed here, sir, with the possible exception of Nancy Pelosi. In the cases of conservative organizations and politicians such as Free Republic and Peter Roskam, efforts were made to bring the amount of criticism in line with articles about similarly-situated liberal organizations and politicians, such as Democratic Underground and Melissa Bean. BenBurch and FAAFA have fought tooth and nail against such efforts every millimeter of the way. Dino 19:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You are cavilling again. BLP does not act as a blanket permission to remove all negative material, that is a matter settled many times in the past. One side of this dispute wanted all - or at least most - negative material expunged, however well sourced. No mater that it was not done, it was the apparent aim. That party was unable to pursue their case in a way consistent with Wikipedia policies, leading to a series of blocks, which were evaded using sockpuppets, as a result of which they were banned. FAAFA and to a much lesser extent BenBurch also pursued their agenda, but generally in line with at least the letter of policy, so they were not banned. We absolutely do not work by comparing the size of criticism sections between competing entites' articles - if there is more verifiable criticism about one than about another, then there is more in the article. Comparing word count is an invalid argument. You think the project has an overall liberal bias? Maybe it does, or maybe that the centre of gravity of the project is in line with the centre of gravity overall, which is more liberal than your own personal POV. Especially after the recent elections... Guy ( Help!) 00:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Are you really saying that the amount of criticism in articles about living persons should be determined by the results of the last election, sir? Dino 22:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
With the caveat that Dino's claim that personal communications trump verifiable external sources is clearly outwith this provision. Guy ( Help!) 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Reliable sources about living people

1) Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, zines or websites/ blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Also from WP:BLP. Kirill Lokshin 06:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Outstanding. Thank you. Right on the mark. Dino 11:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
This goes a lot further than current WP:RS guidelines. Material which is directly attributable to known authorities is not especially problematic even if it is published on a blog, we just shouldn't use blogs as the major sources for an article. For minor facts and statements there's no real problem, and if we want to say "X described this site as such-and0such" and we cite it to X's blog then that may well acceptable, if X is a reliable source. It's an editorial judgement which needs to be assessed by editors without a vested interest in the content. Guy ( Help!) 11:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

WP:BLP is extended to include ongoing enterprises

1) The official Wikipedia policy WP:BLP is hereby extended to include articles about ongoing enterprises, including corporations, associations, online discussion groups, religious groups, non-profit organizations and advocacy groups.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. An ongoing enterprise is just as likely to be libeled by a POV warrior as a living person, as we have seen in this case; and an ongoing enterprise may accuse Wikipedia of libel, as Siegenthaler did. Such events would damage and disrupt the Wikipedia project, and damage the reputation of Wikipedia. This cannot be tolerated. Dino 16:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You might want to read Wikipedia:How to create policy. Prodego talk 16:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
No. This is not the case now, and to extend it through ArbCom decision, especially in the case of a claim based on unverifiable original research, is highly problematic. Guy ( Help!) 22:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
No, as per JzG. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

'Articles about ongoing enterprises' is official policy

1) The essay, Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises is hereby adopted as official Wikipedia policy governing articles about corporations, associations, online discussion groups, religious groups, non-profit organizations and advocacy groups. The policy shall be referred to by the acronym "WP:AAOE" in the future.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed as an alternative to the previous proposal. The essay mirrors WP:BLP in many respects and is a word-for-word copy in some paragraphs. Dino 16:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You might want to read Wikipedia:How to create policy. Prodego talk 16:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I've taken your advice, Prodego, and started a discussion here, as well as the other places called for by Wikipedia:How to create policy. But in those other places I've redirected the discussion here, and the consensus appears to be, "Let's wait and see how the ArbCom turns out." So it's clear that the community is looking to the Arbitrators for some guidance on this issue. The Arbitrators are encouraged to take note of the discussion here, before making any substantive ruling on this issue. Dino 18:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
That is an inactive proposal, not even a current guideline, and if ArbCom elevated it to policy in this way there would be riots. Guy ( Help!) 22:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

BLP should not be used to advance a POV

1) BLP based edits are powerful components of WP that can and have been misused to delete RS V sourced criticism from articles and talk pages in a partisan manner to advance a POV. BLP must not be used to advance any POV, or in a partisan manner. FAAFA 11:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Cautiously support. Guy ( Help!) 11:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Who's who

1) It is not necessary to prove conclusively that multiple accounts are operated by the same person in order to take action against them. Accounts that pursue the same goals in the same disruptive manner may be treated as a single account for arbitration purposes.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Accepted, although I may rephrase it. Fred Bauder 19:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Does "disruptive" mean "reverting the partisan left-wing POV pusher"? Or does it mean "filing for dispute resolution in good faith"? Perhaps it means "starting one meatpuppet investigation when a pair of editors are acting like meatpuppets"? Or "suggesting that derogatory material with abysmally bad sourcing should be removed from the article"?
And are you going to treat BenBurch and FAAFA as a single account? Dino 01:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
They have distinctly different editing patterns, so no. Fred Bauder 19:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse --- BenBurch 20:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Essentially, this ignores the possibility that two or more schoolmates, or co-workers, or family members could be editing from the same IP address. It is a violation of WP:SOCK to make that assumption. See my comments above about "Ricky and Ronnie." Dino 18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Common principle in many cases. Thatcher131 14:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Similar to my comment in "Comments by others:" at #DeanHinnen aides and abets BryanFromPalatine's ban evasion. Picaroon 20:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse of course, per the duck test. And Dino - no. BenBurch and FAAFA have widely differing edit histories, the only problem here is that both of them (along with other editors in good standing) find your edits problematic. Guy ( Help!) 11:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Whatever else comes to pass, I have to agree that this is good and relevant policy, and that it doesn't look to me like Ben and FAAFA qualify as socks under it. They clearly aren't connected single or limited purpose accounts. Georgewilliamherbert 23:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Reminiscent of the findings in the Midnight Syndicate case. Remedies may be fashioned in a manner that obviates specific identification of particular users. Durova Charge! 07:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Sockpuppets

1) For the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits, they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Daniel.Bryant 08:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
True, but redundant to the above #Who's who section. Picaroon 20:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Monitoring an editor is legitimate

1) Where an editor has a history of biased contributions, it is legitimate to monitor that editor's edits. It is not permissible to threaten or harass them, but it is permissible to engage in civil debate regarding content which is seen as biased, or to bring such bias to the notice of other editors of an article.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Let's not pretend that the Wikistalking by BenBurch and FAAFA is anything other than what it is: a constant violation of WP:STALK, badly camouflaged as concern that I might be making inappropriate edits. Each and every one of these articles where I edited first, and then they reverted me, is a very ordinary content dispute. The trouble is that they are extending the original content dispute from Free Republic.
Their behavior destroys one of the most effective methods of dispute resolution available at Wikipedia: the ability to just walk away. I am not being allowed to walk away. I am being forced to keep fighting these two wherever I go. Permitting this to continue will send a signal to every other Wikipedia editor who is thinking about using this simple, effective method of dispute resolution. If it is no longer effective, and if WP:STALK will not be enforced when the Wikistalkers employ such flimsy pretexts, you're going to see a lot more content disputes getting escalated. People will think that they can't just walk away. They will dig in their heels and start doing things that attract the attention of administrators.
On each article ( Peter Roskam, Nancy Pelosi and Bill Nelson), there were already other editors present who could monitor my edits and make their own judgments about them. They didn't need any help at all. But BenBurch and FAAFA insisted on "helping" them. I have no problem with being monitored. I have a very serious problem with being monitored by BenBurch and FAAFA. Based on our history at Free Republic, particularly on January 31, no one should think for a moment that I'm being unreasonable about that.
In particular, JzG admonished both of them to leave me the hell alone for two weeks on February 3. All three articles ( Peter Roskam, Nancy Pelosi and Bill Nelson) had their first edits by these two within the following two weeks, and those edits included reversions of my edits. Even though JzG refuses to enforce that two-week warning, the Arbitration Committee should understand that it defines this editing as Wikistalking, rather than legitimate monitoring.
Don't let these people keep making flimsy excuses. Enforce WP:STALK. Dino 01:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. If it was absolutely forbidden to trawl or watch an editors contribs, many admins would have to be banned immediately. What's not allowed is to harrass. So: "Sorry, I do not believe this is significant" would be OK, but "revert yet more freeper bullshit" would not. Note that I didn't find either of those summaries in the histories, although there is no shortage of insulting or aggressive edit summaries if you care to look at the parties' contribs. Guy ( Help!) 17:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Disagree, simply because its entirely subjective, as an admin I am sure you have heard complaints of POV pushing, if you state that automatically allows monitoring of a user, you are creating a massive slope/cliff. I believe the times in which you can monitor a watchlist is already noted, its in the case of vandalism. Stating admins go beyond the outline of when its permitted, doesnt make it look much better. -- Nuclear Zer0 17:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The thing is, Dean proposes that watching his contributions is harrassment. But his edits, for the most part, are tendentious. There is nothign wrong with watching the edits of a tendentious editor. The problem comes when you become aggressive about it. BenBurch is, to my mind, not an offender in this regard, the instances of so-called harassment by BenBurch forwarded to me by Dean are pretty lame - polite and unproblematic, I'd say. FAAFA is less reasonable in this respect. He may well be guilty of harassment. But I'd not say that BenBurch is, based on the evidence I've seen, he's just checking the edits of an editor known to be biased, and is supported in his edits by others in good standing (e.g. Calton). It would be wrong to call these edits harassment or stalking, because they do not to me seem to serve primarily or even as a side-effect to cause disruption. Guy ( Help!) 00:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
As a policy, and practical consideration, I have to agree that this is both happening in practice and a good idea. That said, there are both potential and practical anti-stalking issues brought forwards. They should be separate from the general question of whether it's ok to ever monitor a percieved problem user. Georgewilliamherbert 23:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Sure. The point here is that the judgement of what constitutes stalking is situational. FAAFA has engaged, in my view, in stalking, or at leats low-grade harassment, but not of Dino - watching the contribs of an overtly biased editor is legitimate if done in a civil manner and really FAAFA was simply baiting Dino to get a rise (bad, but not terribly bad). I don't see any credible evidence that BenBurch has stalked, because where he did challenge Dino's edits it was done in a civil manner, was in line with the opinion of other editors, and was taken to the article Talk page - I really struggle to see anything wrong with this. Guy ( Help!) 00:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
... FAAFA was simply baiting Dino to get a rise ...
And you did nothing about it. Here's what was wrong with what BenBurch did, sir. Regardless of your perceptions, BenBurch admits that his entire purpose was to bait me "to get a rise": "I can think of no other way to force him to get the attention of enough admins to finally get one of them to deal with him." [31] I had engaged in a bitter content dispute with them, I walked away, and you told both of them to leave me the hell alone for two weeks. Instead, they stalked me to not one, not two, but three other articles where other editors and even some admins (and at least one Arbitrator) were already present to sort things out, and baited me everywhere I went. This was a violation of WP:STALK by both of them. It's really that simple. Dino 02:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia values fun, humor and sarcasm

1) (text = work in progress) Wikipedia recognizes that humor, fun, riposte and sarcasm are integral parts of human interaction, and are valued (within limits) on Wikipedia as well.

Wikipedia:Enjoy_yourself

Wikipedia:Rouge_admin

FAAFA 03:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
How is this relevant, please?
unsigned by (?)
There's a difference between using humor to defuse stressful situations and this situation. This situation isn't funny anymore. Georgewilliamherbert 23:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It never was funny, sir. Dino 17:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oh don't be so modest - you have provided several belly laughs, albeit unintentionally. Guy ( Help!) 23:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Allegations of off-Wiki harassment are alarming

1) Allegations of off-Wiki harassment and stalking are very alarming. Disclosures of personal information, particularly by an administrator in circumstances that can appear retaliatory, can enable this harassment and are also disturbing. Any involvement, enablement or encouragement of off-Wiki harassment will be subject to sanctions from the Arbitration Committee and all admins, up to and including a permanent ban. The matter may also be referred to the Wikimedia Foundation and law enforcement authorities for further action.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 17:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
My revealing of your brother's e-mail is something I regret doing. However, it wasn't retaliatory, I was making my sockpuppet case. Fred Bauder and Essjay both have more info about this, which the other arbitrators should probably hear. In addition there was AN or ANI discussion on it, although I can not provide a link. Prodego talk 17:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It may not have been retaliatory, and despite the absolute refusal of others to give members of my family the benefit of the doubt, I'm giving it to you. But it was in circumstances that appeared retaliatory and the consequences were disastrous, to him and to his family. Another admin has repeated this disclosure, also in circumstances that appeared retaliatory, without showing the slightest sign of remorse.
Then he protected the page so that I couldn't revert the disclosure.
Then, when I took it to ANI, I didn't have a lot of time to fool around (due to off-Wiki constraints in my professional life); the admin whose comment I was redacting couldn't be contacted by e-mail, and I made a sloppy edit. The same admin who repeated your disclosure used this as an excuse to instigate a 24-hour block, and also instigated a later 48-hour block for canvassing (in circumstances that another admin and I would describe as "friendly noticing").
I hope you understand why I have my doubts about this particular admin's objectivity in this entire matter, Prodego. Dino 17:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Fallacious. If you were concerned about your brother's privacy who you 'claim' was harassed in real life, for years, and even forced into penury by evil libs, you would have never created a username including your last name. I advised you about 'turnip trucks' Mr. Hinnen. - FaAfA 20:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The statement that people refused to give members your family the benefit of the doubt is demonstrably false. You are posting here, clear evidence that at least one member was given the benefit of the doubt, and I remember at least half a dozen threads ont he admin noticeboard before Bryan was finally banned. Guy ( Help!) 23:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You outed yourself and your "brother" too the moment you decided to use your own name as a login name and enter his fight. What on earth were you thinking? If you knew your bother was so universally hated (something I never knew, and still don't) why on earth would you choose to expose him in that fashion? In any case I had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. And if he were so concerned with being found by dangerous liberals, why did he have an unlisted phone number? It does not add up in any way.
Plus, doing some googling, the only evidence of harassment of Bryan I could find was where he was harassed by the Drug Enforcement Agency who got the wrong house when they went to bust a drug operation and lied to the judge to obtain the warrant. He then rightly won against them in a lawsuit. Not really Dangerous Liberals there.
And in any case, I had zero to do with either outing that name or posting that personal information. In fact I believe I reverted it out of his user page at least once. -- BenBurch 22:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Let's get this straight: you are allowed to state that you are Bryan's brother, that his name is Bryan, and that your name is Dean Hinnen, but anybody who says that Bryan's name is Bryan plus Hinnen is responsible for him being harassed off Wikipedia, is that what you're saying? Guy ( Help!) 23:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Yeah, let's get this straight. BFP has been stalked and harassed mercilessly because he worked for Free Republic. Not only did he work for the Free Republic legal team on the LA Times lawsuit and a lot of other cases, he was one of their most effective anti-vandalism people for five very turbulent years. The vandals loathed him.
You've seen the anti-vandalism efforts by the volunteers here, and the responses of the vandals. Perhaps you can understand, sir. Free Republic is not so different in that way, and in several other ways.
Nobody here would have known BFP's last name, or that we are related, or that he had relocated to a particular town, until Prodego announced it for the benefit of BenBurch, FAAFA, and any other left-wing partisans who happened to be looking at Talk:Free Republic that day. Then it was deleted. Then at an allegedly public list that can't be accessed by a search engine, I had to confirm the relationship and make a lot of other disclosures in order to get unblocked. Because it is a semi-private list that can't be accessed by a search engine, and because there is no space between my first and last names in my username, a search engine is still unable to find the word due to any action of mine.
But you, BenBurch and FAAFA, by continuing to run your reckless mouths, have repeatedly put both BFP's first name and BFP's last name on the same page for a search engine to find. Prodego has apologized for it. He has also apologized for blocking me. He has not repeated those mistakes.
You have made certain that those mistakes keep getting repeated. And you have never shown the slightest sign of remorse for it. Dino 02:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Some editors are more vulnerable than others

1) Some editors are more vulnerable than others to breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as the disclosure of personal information. They may feel comfortable releasing some bits of information (for example, first name and town of residence) even if disclosure of one more detail (last name) would be catastrophic. Other editors are not to make independent judgments about such differing levels of vulnerability, or which personal details are capable of disclosure.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. No one has any idea about what's going on outside of Wikipedia unless they're told. Editors and administrators should start from the assumption that any breach of policy on their part will cause a substantial amount of damage, and proceed accordingly. For example, we may have an editor who has just escaped from domestic abuse, or has been subjected to stalking in the past. Or a violation of WP:BLP might involve an article about a living person who is highly irritable and litigious, with substantial resources available to retain counsel and engage in expensive delaying tactics, while the press drags Wikipedia's reputation through the mud. There's no telling what landmines we may step on; the best policy is to avoid any possible minefields in the first place. Dino 17:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by party : FaAfA 09:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Here is what User:ArlingtonTX, one of BryanFromPalatine many highly-developed sockpuppet personas wrote. He didn't seemed nearly as concerned about discussing the 'family tree' as DeanHinnen seems to be.
  • "I'm the patriarch of a large extended family that has been editing Wikipedia from anonymous IP addresses for up to three years. We've recently reached a collective decision to start registering our accounts and participating in more discussions here at Wikipedia. We are all located in the Northwest Suburbs of Chicago. The "tribe" includes a grandfather and grandmother, seven children and their spouses and significant others, at least three of our brilliant and precocious grandchildren, and a few close friends and advisors of the family. BryanFromPalatine is part of our "tribe." So is DP1976. So is 12ptHelvetica. I'll have to call my daughter to find out for sure, but it's possible that Runesword is one of the younger members of our "tribe" who plays Dungeons and Dragons." Diff
Comment by others:
What is this crap? The only litigious party named thus far is Free Republic, and we know who does the litigating there. If you didn't want people to know Bryan's real identity you should not have identified yourself as his brother, or you should have chosen a different username. The source we have for Bryan's name is: you. You are the source. You outed your brother. It was you. Dean Hinnen - that's you - Bryan's brother - that's you - named yourself as Bryan's brother (note: yourself), while freely admitting to your full name. And this is our fault in what way, exactly? This is becoming surreal! Guy ( Help!) 23:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Once again, sir, from the beginning: nobody would have known BFP's last name, or that we are related, without the initial disclosure by Prodego on January 15. From that disclosure, others flowed. I am not responsible for Prodego's violation of Wikipedia privacy policy. I have not posted BFP's last name in a manner that can be found by a search engine. You, sir, are responsible for that. And I don't see even the slightest sign of remorse. Dino 02:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Nope, You gave it away yourself when you created this account. And you expect us to believe that you cannot see the consequences of a reckless act like that? I actually suspect that you ginned all this up to create a scene with later. Much too convenient. And I don't believe for even a moment that there has been any harassment of your "brother" as a result, either. Would you care to offer some proof? I didn't think so. -- BenBurch 03:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Stop trying to shift the blame for the misconduct of your friends. It's really getting old. Prodego admitted that his disclosure was inappropriate and he had the decency to apologize. Without that, no one would have known that I, or my username, had anything at all to do with BFP. Proving the harassment would provide additional disclosures, just as proving that I'm not BFP provided additional disclosures at Unblock-en-l. So once again, sir, I must respectfully decline to take the bait you're shoving in my face. Dino 04:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
No, the blame was all yours. It was a predictable consequence that creating a sock puppet using your middle name might reveal your Christian name. You made your bed, now lie in it. -- BenBurch 14:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I admit it that I consider it inappropriate to do so, I defer to the arbcom for policy. I recall the Squidward vandal's name being gleaned from Email. Prodego talk 20:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Civility during arbitration

1) Parties to an arbitration must refrain from personal attacks and other forms of incivility during the arbitration, just as at all other times. Hostility, malice, and incivility displayed during arbitration will be taken into account in judging the parties' continued participation in Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. I find much of the conduct on this very page to be thoroughly disgusting. -- FOo 09:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
One would hope that the context that triggered any "Hostility, malice, and incivility displayed during arbitration" will also be taken into account. I'm Sorry. But I've been stalked all over this website, my family has been stalked in real life, and it's just a little bit difficult to be Mother Theresa under the circumstances. Dino 23:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. None of the participants make themselves look good here. And if anyone is genuinely fearful they should invoke Wikipedia's right to vanish rather than engage in further conflict. Durova Charge! 06:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Conflict of interest

1) Users who are involved in an activity which is the subject of an article may be banned from the article if their editing is disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 22:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Support. Fits with precedent and certainly relevant here. Durova Charge! 07:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Neutral point of view

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that articles regarding controversial subjects shall in a conservative sober manner set forth all significant points of view regarding the subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 18:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Verifiable information from reliable sources

1) Wikipedia:Verifiability, a policy, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, a guideline, require that information included in an article on a subject shall be limited to verifiable information from reliable third party sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

No original research

1) Wikipedia:No original research, a policy, precludes use of personal experience as source for information in an article; likewise, material published on a partisan forum is not acceptable as a source.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 18:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Articles in dispute

1) In addition to Free Republic (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Peter Roskam (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Nancy Pelosi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Incomplete Fred Bauder 19:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

BenBurch recruited meatpuppets

1) Starting in October 2005, BenBurch actively recruited meatpuppets from Democratic Underground to participate at Wikipedia and introduce a left-wing bias into articles about political topics [32]. JamesMLane also participated in the DU thread that recruited left-wing meatpuppets at Democratic Underground.

Recruiting efforts by BenBurch

1) Starting in October 2005, BenBurch recruited liberal and progressive activists from Democratic Underground to participate at Wikipedia [33]. JamesMLane also participated, emphasizing the importance of conforming to Wikipedia policies. The initial request for editors appears to have resulted from editing conflicts regarding Andy Stephenson, now deleted.

Comment by Arbitrators:
I have checked this out. BenBurch did post a request for Wikipedia editors on the "Activist HQ" forum at Democratic Underground.com. This resulted in a spirited debate regarding the pros and cons of such editing. JamesMLane, particularly, emphasized the importance of acquainting yourself with Wikipedia's policies and following them. Fred Bauder 18:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I have added alternative language which I find acceptable. Fred Bauder 19:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Here's the evidence. [34] Dino 19:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Become Wikipedia Editors
Posted by benburch on Sat Oct-08-05 11:55 AM
There is a crying need for more Liberal/Progressive Wikipedia editors. Right now, groups like Free Republic can essentially have their own way with their entries in Wikipedia. They can control their message entirely in this supposedly neutral online resource because they can outnumber us when a discussion to reach consensus on a disputed entry occurs.
Please head over to http://www.wikipedia.org / and sign up.
Would anyone care to comment? Ben, would you care to report on the results of your meatpuppet recruiting, and any subsequent efforts you have made? Dino 14:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply


  • No, son, I recruited EDITORS. There was no issue at stake at that time that anybody was being asked to sway, nor did I suggest how they edit or give them any agenda. And I think two people responded and have become long term editors as a direct result; User:Jinxmchue and User:Crockspot -- BenBurch 21:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You started that Democratic Underground thread on October 8, 2005. On October 4, October 5, October 6 and October 8 of that year, you were engaged in a protracted edit war with a Freeper named Dominick. Where was this conflict? It was at Free Republic and Talk:Free Republic. Fancy that. Diffs aplenty. [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] (does anybody notice a 3RR violation in there anywhere?) [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] (this includes threats by BenBurch to sue Jim Robinson, another indication of Ben's COI problem) [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]
So let's not pretend, sir, that "there was no issue at stake at that time that anybody was being asked to sway." There was the issue of the death of Andy Stephenson, right? If there's any way to contact people at DU that isn't public, such as private messaging or e-mail, there's no way to tell whether you were trying to "suggest how they edit or give them any agenda." Dino 21:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
WOW. Just Googling the word combination "BenBurch" + "Democratic Underground" + "Wikipedia" has produced a gold mine of evidence, sir. This is fascinating. You've been very busy. Dino 21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:

BenBurch harassed BFP

1) BenBurch is guilty of harassing BFP.

Comment by Arbitrators:
I am presently unable to determine the validity of this finding due to lack of cited evidence. Fred Bauder 19:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Proposed in the event that the Committee chooses to consider evidence that relates to BFP. Dino 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
WP:KETTLE. Guy ( Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I have harassed or stalked these parties, do it. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Ah, so you are Bryan. Thanks for clearing that up. Guy ( Help!) 23:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Posting " WP:KETTLE" in a direct response to a post by Dino subsumes that I am the Pot calling the Kettles black. The fact that I'm not BFP has already been cleared up. Dino 23:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep saying that if you like, but it has not. -- BenBurch 14:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This is not useful without some evidence. Ideally, a proposed finding of fact will have a couple of diffs showing the best examples of the behavior, or a wikilink to a section on the evidence page, so that the arbitrators can evaluate the proposal. As a bare statement with no evidence, you are asking the arbitrators to find your evidence for you, which they may or may not do. Thatcher131 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If Arbitrators deny my motion to exclude evidence about BFP, I'll edit my section of the Evidence page and link it here. Until then, I'd rather wait. Dino 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

FAAFA harassed BFP

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All is guilty of harassing BFP.

Comment by Arbitrators:
I am presently unable to determine the validity of this finding due to lack of cited evidence. Fred Bauder 19:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Proposed in the event that the Committee chooses to consider evidence that relates to BFP. Dino 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
WP:KETTLE. Guy ( Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I have harassed or stalked these parties, do it. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Useless without diffs or links to evidence of some kind. See my comments above. Thatcher131 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If Arbitrators deny my motion to exclude evidence about BFP, I'll edit my section of the Evidence page and link it here. Until then, I'd rather wait. Dino 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

FAAFA and BenBurch ganged up on BFP

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All and BenBurch are guilty of using gang tactics against BFP.

Comment by Arbitrators:
I am presently unable to determine the validity of this finding due to lack of cited evidence. Fred Bauder 19:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Proposed in the event that the Committee chooses to consider evidence that relates to BFP. Dino 21:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
WP:KETTLE. Guy ( Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I have harassed or stalked these parties, do it. I fail to understand how one person could engage in gang tactics alone. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Since that's the neologism you seem intent on coining to describe the "gang of two", I don't see the relevance of your point. Bryan was a one-man gang. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JzG ( talk • contribs) 18:08, February 13, 2007 (UTC)
Useless without diffs or links to evidence of some kind. See my comments above. Thatcher131 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If Arbitrators deny my motion to exclude evidence about BFP, I'll edit my section of the Evidence page and link it here. Until then, I'd rather wait. Dino 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

BenBurch harassed Dino

1) BenBurch is guilty of harassing DeanHinnen.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
WP:KETTLE. Guy ( Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I have harassed or stalked these parties, do it. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Useless without diffs or links to evidence of some kind. See my comments above. Thatcher131 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Okay. [62] [63] [64] Dino 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Those are not diffs in respect of BenBurch, they are your statements which include lots of diffs many of which are FAAFA and none of which appear at a quick review to be harassment by BenBurch; you have previously cited supposed harassment by BenBurch which consists of repeating the reversion of your tendentious edits by Calton, an editor in good standing, and with a civil edit summary at that. Please provide diffs for actual harassment by BenBurch. Guy ( Help!) 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Of course, sir. On January 31, BenBurch claiming that I'm BFP, accused me of using the Fensteren account as a sock, and filed a sockpuppet investigation against me that even a few admins immediately identified as vexatious, then came back to the Talk:Free Republic page to taunt me about it. [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] BenBurch on the subject of BenBurch, in a rare, unguarded moment of candor: "Under control? Not likely ..." And this was just after he had returned from a 24-hour slap on the wrist for "incivility and misrepresentation."
Here's a BenBurch taunt that an admin instantly recognized as a taunt: [71] Here's the recognition: [72]
Here's an admin recognizing BenBurch's new sockpuppet case as vexatious process: [73] How much more do you need, sir? Shall I back up the truck and start dumping, or is that enough? Dino 15:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply

FAAFA harassed Dino

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All is guilty of harassing DeanHinnen.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
WP:KETTLE. Guy ( Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I have harassed or stalked these parties, do it. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Happy to. Guy ( Help!) 23:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Useless without diffs or links to evidence of some kind. See my comments above. Thatcher131 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Okay. [74] [75] [76] Dino 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply


FAAFA and BenBurch ganged up on Dino

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All and BenBurch are guilty of using gang tactics against DeanHinnen.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed. Dino 21:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
WP:KETTLE. Guy ( Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I have harassed or stalked these parties, do it. I fail to understand how one person could engage in gang tactics alone. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Useless without diffs or links to evidence of some kind. See my comments above. Thatcher131 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Okay. [77] [78] [79] Dino 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The word "gang" should be grounds for immediate striking out of any comment by Dino. It's his private Sopranos fandom thing. We don't use the word, and certainly never to describe two editors. Guy ( Help!) 00:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Then it's time to start using it, sir, when describing two against one. Not in an ordinary consensus discussion, sir, but when employed in a harassing, hectoring, bullying, ridiculing way, Wikistalking from article to article, day after day, week after week. Dino 05:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply

BenBurch Wikistalked Dino

1) BenBurch is guilty of Wikistalking DeanHinnen.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
WP:KETTLE. Guy ( Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I have harassed or stalked these parties, do it. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Useless without diffs or links to evidence of some kind. See my comments above. Thatcher131 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Okay. [80] [81] [82] Dino 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply


FAAFA Wikistalked Dino

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All is guilty of Wikistalking DeanHinnen.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
WP:KETTLE. Guy ( Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I have harassed or stalked these parties, do it. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Useless without diffs or links to evidence of some kind. See my comments above. Thatcher131 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Okay. [83] [84] [85] Dino 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply


BenBurch guilty of POV pushing

1) BenBurch is guilty of POV pushing.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 22:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
WP:KETTLE. Guy ( Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I am guilty of POV pushing, do it. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

FAAFA guilty of POV pushing

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All is guilty of POV pushing.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed. Dino 22:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
WP:KETTLE. Guy ( Help!) 22:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If you would like to propose a finding of fact indicating that I am guilty of POV pushing, do it. Dino 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

External disputes brought to Wikipedia

1) The dispute represents an external dispute brought to Wikipedia. DeanHinnen in particular appears to have no purpose on Wikipedia other than to pursue this dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
This accusation fails the moment arbitrators take a look at edit histories of Peter Roskam, Bill Nelson and Nancy Pelosi. Those articles had nothing to do with this dispute until I was followed there by opposing parties. My purpose in participating at Talk:Free Republic was to convince others to remove material I found libelous, not to pursue any dispute. Once that goal was achieved, and this very same admin "strongly suggested" that I leave BB & FAAFA alone for two weeks, I left the Talk:Free Republic page and started editing other articles. And then they are the ones who pursued me, sir. Dino 23:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I see that your account was created much later than either of theirs, and among your first actions on arriving here was to register an RfC against one of the parties. So no, you came here for a fight. Guy ( Help!) 09:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Your relentless distortion of the evidence, to conceal the glaring inconsistencies and weaknesses in your case, is most unbecoming to your status as an administrator, sir. I was actively participating at Wikipedia for weeks before I filed that RfC, and had seen the subject of the RfC (BenBurch) in action: filing sockpuppet accusations left and right, and representing the results as "Confirmed" even when an RFCU wasn't even performed, or showed that the alleged sockpuppetry was merely "Possible." I only filed the RfC in response to the urging of two administrators: Prodego and Jossi. Dino 14:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed Guy ( Help!) 22:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Banned users

1) User:DeanHinnen, who is stated to be the brother of User:BryanFromPalatine and edits from the same IP address, pursued BryanFromPalatine's dispute on his behalf following Bryan's ban, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BenBurch and elsewhere, including posting on behalf of Bryan by proxy.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I have posted as BFP's proxy in dispute resolution. I pursued the removal of material libelous to Free Republic on behalf of Free Republic. All my other edits have been on my own behalf, sir. In some families, members tend to think alike. Perhaps you're not familiar with this tendency. It does not necessarily mean that one is acting as the other's agent. Dino 23:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You have posted as Bryan's proxy. This is acceptable in the case of advocates seeking ArbCom review of bans and blocks, not in the case of continuing the pursuit of a vendetta against another editor. Guy ( Help!) 23:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You claim that dispute resolution is "pursuit of a vendetta"? Dino 23:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
DeanHinnen wrote: I think my brother Bryan would like to have a piece of that action - FAAFA 01:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply


Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy ( Help!) 23:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Durova Charge! 07:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Dino guilty of harassment

1) Dino harassed BenBurch and FAAFA through the mechanism of numerous vexatious uses of process (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BenBurch, multiple postings to the administrators' noticeboards, e.g. [86], [87], and by actively soliciting administrator involvement against BenBurch and FAAFA.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
An essential element of this accusation is the word "vexatious." I did not intend for my actions to be vexatious. I intended for my actions to resolve this dispute. "Actively seeking involvement by an administrator" to enforce Wikipedia policy? What was I supposed to do when they posted personal attacks? Just take it like a man? If admins are unaware of a violation of Wikipedia policy, how are they supposed to find out about it? Dino 23:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
I can provide the contents of numerous emails from Dino soliciting my action, as an administrator, against BenBurch. The ANI threads Guy ( Help!) 23:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Disagree with vexatious - there was mutual combat between both "sides" extensively prior to these RFC and ANI incidents, exhibited in different manners by each side. Without regards to who started it or which side was right or wrong, Dean was correct that there was an incident going on and that it needed attention. Numerous admins and users attempted to calm the situation or mediate in some way - the failures thereof don't make the efforts by Dean to seek it vexatious. During periods where there was mutual disengagement, Dean didn't strongly continue such actions, indicating that they were directly provoked. Perhaps over the top, perhaps harrassment, but disagree that he was complaining just to stir up trouble. Georgewilliamherbert 00:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

User:Fairness And Accuracy For All/ User:NBGPWS is a disruptive and tendentious editor.

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)/ NBGPWS ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a disruptive and tendentious editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed Tbeatty 02:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I simply could not agree more. Bravo. Right on the mark. Dino 16:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Actually, he has been the only editor that was willing to "write for the enemy" during informal mediation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Incorrect. If necessary, I'll provide diffs. I've reviewed that portion of the mediation and the pro-FR faction completed the "Criticism and controversy" section promptly. Dino 13:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Note : That 'DeanHinnen' wasn't a participant in that mediation - his 'brother' and 4 (5?) sockpuppet account personas (all using the same IP as DeanHinnen) were. Why should 'DeanHinnen' be familiar with what happened before he joined? - FAAFA 09:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It really doesn't matter if he was there or not - even if he wasn't, it would be perfectly legitimate for him to go back through archives. There is no requirement that arbitrations only consider acts done in the immediate past and directly from involved party to involved party. Georgewilliamherbert 23:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

FAAFA engaged in edit warring

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All is guilty of edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 12:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
WP:KETTLE Make a section for everyone, it is why all are here is it not? -- Nuclear Zer0 17:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

BenBurch engaged in edit warring

1) BenBurch is guilty of edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 12:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:

FAAFA used poorly sourced derogatory material

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All used poorly sourced derogatory material in an article about an ongoing enterprise, exposing Wikipedia to the risk of civil liability.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 12:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Meritless : (as to civil liability) I pointed 'attorney' DeanHinnen to this article Is Wikipedia safe from libel liability? and another source saying the same. - FAAFA 09:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
See my comments in the next section, sir. Dino 14:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply


Comment by others:
Difs? -- Nuclear Zer0 17:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Glad you mentioned that, sir. On January 6, FAAFA doubled the length of negative commentary in the lead; added the non-encyclopedic, Todd Brendan Fahey based "rubber stamp for Bush Administration" comment to the lead, without quotation marks; added the libelous AmericanPolitics.com link to the lead; added a lengthy, libelous quotation from AmericanPolitics.com to the "Controversial aspects" section; and removed a description of the settlement (favorable to FR) in the LA Times lawsuit from the "Copyright lawsuit" section. This was the moment when the article crossed the line from a flawed but still somewhat encyclopedic article to a hatchet job.
And there it stayed, defended by BenBurch and FAAFA like the Japanese defended Iwo Jima, until the arrival of CyberAnth, PTR, Ken Arromdee and Armon. Thanks to the efforts of the latter four editors, it has been changed back into a flawed but reasonably encyclopedic article. Dino 14:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply

BenBurch used poorly sourced derogatory material

1) BenBurch used poorly sourced derogatory material in an article about an ongoing enterprise, exposing Wikipedia to the risk of civil liability.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 12:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Meritless : (as to civil liability) I pointed 'attorney' DeanHinnen to this article Is Wikipedia safe from libel liability? and another source saying the same. - FAAFA 09:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
In the very source you've just linked, sir, a University of Chicago law professor named Douglas Lichtman has commented that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act may fail to protect Wikipedia under certain circumstances against a libel lawsuit. (Perhaps you should have read the second page of your link.) If Carolyn Doran knows that an article contains libelous statements and does nothing (or perhaps "nothing effective in the long term") to remove those statements from the article, can Wikipedia be held liable?
For example, [Lichtman] said, if Wales and his Wikipedia colleagues knew clearly that they were distributing defamatory material, "that knowledge plus Wikipedia's ability to remove the defamatory material should, in my view, give rise to an obligation to act."
Absolute immunity is difficult to find in the law, sir. And you have failed to address the damage that such cases would cause to Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral encyclopedic source. Everyone involved in the leadership of Wikipedia remembers the Siegenthaler case. Nobody wants it to be repeated, even though Wikipedia did not have to pay any monetary damages. There are other costs to be paid in litigation besides damages, sir.
I've done my best to protect Wikipedia. Not only am I dealing with some very headstrong and uncooperative people here, I've dealt with similarly disposed people at Free Republic. This has been most frustrating, and I must confess that my impatience has led at times to behavior that is unacceptable to the community; but litigation has been prevented. Whatever happens to my Wikipedia membership is of little consequence in light of that result. The important thing, as far as I am concerned, is protecting the project from reckless partisans like you. Dino 14:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:

DeanHinnen aides and abets BryanFromPalatine's ban evasion

1) DeanHinnen ( talk · contribs) aides and abets community ban evasion by BryanFromPalatine ( talk · contribs). DeanHinnen's actions in consistently pushing a point of view and attacking BryanFromPalatine's nemeses Fairness And Accuracy For All ( talk · contribs) and BenBurch ( talk · contribs) cleary show that the account DeanHinnen is being used to be further the interests of a banned user.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I concur. In Wikipedia policy there is no distinction between a meat puppet and a sock puppet in a practical sense. -- BenBurch 05:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Consider all the evidence. On January 15 Carolyn Doran, Chief Operating Officer of the Wikimedia Foundation, had removed libelous material. She was banned for impersonating a Foundation employee and her removal of the libelous material was reverted. I reluctantly opened an account at her suggestion and removed the libelous material again. I was permablocked as an alleged puppet. I went to Unblock-en-l and was unblocked. I then started gently persuading anyone who would listen to remove the libelous material and was relentlessly attacked by BB & FAAFA. That made them My nemeses, completely independent from their relentless badgering and baiting of my brother. BB & FAAFA have been very cunning and skillful in provoking conflict and then making the other party appear to be the aggressor. Do not reward this behavior. Punish it. Dino 16:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Pardon me, but I had to laugh when I read this. Bryan (and you) can seemingly be provoked merely by disagreeing with you or changing any part of your contributions to main article space. If that is all it take, my friend, you don't belong here. -- BenBurch 18:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Read the evidence page. Click on the links to the diffs I provided. Read the constant tone of mockery and ridicule, sir. And if your friend Guy succeeds in dragging my brother into this, the remarks you made in the sockpuppet investigations and RFCUs are even worse. Your remarks go far, far beyond a polite disagreement over the content of an article, sir. Otherwise you and your friend FAAFA wouldn't have received those 24-hour blocks for incivility.
Also, another reason why you got a 24-hour block was "misrepresentation." This is a polite way to say "lying," sir. Your entire participation in this proceeding, as well as FAAFA's, consists of misrepresenting the evidence. The constant distortions, half-truths and spin-doctoring don't even stop here. Dino 13:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. I'm now realizing that whether DeanHinnen is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet is of no serious consequence; he is aiding in ban evasion either way. Picaroon 00:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Tbeatty has intentionally and egregiously misused BLP

1) Tbeatty has intentionally and egregiously misused BLP to a) advance his POV and a blatantly partisan agenda. Please look at: The Clinton Chronicles (diff) and Pat Robertson (diff) (compare and contrast the two edits - and note that after TBeatty violated BLP and defamed Clinton with accusations of murder, he actually argued this point when attempting to keep critical info out of an article on a politician whose poltical affiliation he supports (Larry Craig): "All rumours have a source. It doesn't mean WP needs to repeat them. When Wikipedia's standards are less than the Washington Posts or the New York times, we have a problem") (diff coming) b) to censor legitimate free speech on another editor's userpage in a harassing manner link and c) to delete and censor valid discussion link (many more examples of this misuse of BLP can and will be provided) - FAAFA 11:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty's creation of page 'Jim Robinson (Free Republic)' on 1/31/07

The following example is of major importance

In the midst of content wars at Free Republic Tbeatty created the page Jim Robinson (Free Republic) on 01/31/07, and redirected it to Free Republic.

Note that this was while participants were hotly arguing if certain negative info 'defamed' Jim Robinson, and should be removed under BLP. Note that Tbeatty had (much) earlier added a BIO template onto an organization he supports, Protest Warrior, and had actually evoked BLP to omit criticism of 'unnamed conservative bloggers' (with no website mentioned) and the corporation PayPal during the very acrimonious AfD battles over highly notable voting rights activist, my cyberfriend Andy Stephenson. Internet Martyr:The life and cruel death of Andy Stephenson

This is where much of the 'bad blood' originated - although I will readily admit that my prior early participation on Protest Warrior was way out of line. I had been accustomed to 'no holds barred' brawling on several political discussion boards, and engaged in the same on the talk pages of the Protest Warrior article (as did others, until Admins showed up) I learned my lesson - much due to the proactive efforts of concerned editors such as MortyD, MONGO, TravB, and NuclearUmph - and compared to then I'm a paragon of civility (in the tradition of valued editors like MONGO, Calton, and Giano ;-) - FAAFA 00:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply


Comment by others: I did create the Jim Robinson redirect. He is a notable figure but not outside of Free Republic so it stands that all the information belongs there. I also made sure he was on the disambiguation page. Regardless of whether there is a link or not, negative unsourced information about living people should not be in any article. There is nothing contentious about that. Claiming that PayPal committed fraud without a source or unsourced negative information about website owners/founders is simply not allowed. -- Tbeatty 03:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

TBeatty is guilty of 'POV pushing'

The following example is of minor importance

A question to the Reference desk asked about Global Warming in Great Britain. Tbeatty even used this as an opportunity to push his politics, his POV, and his 'conspiracy theories' about the media and 'global cooling' ! "I believe the eastern United States has been cooling steadily [88] but lots of places have been cooling. Not that you would have heard it on the news :). There are lots of suggested outcomes of Global Warming mostly though it creates alarmism instead of representing scientific conclusions." Tbeatty 05:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC) link As for Tbeatty's 'conspiracy theories' about 'lots of suggested outcomes', 'alarmism', and 'global cooling', 600+ scientists from 40 countries say : 'HUH?' FAAFA reply

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Observe how FAAFA has tried to turn WP:BLP upside down. It's intended to protect the Wikipedia project from becoming a source of controversy and a target of libel lawsuits. The edits made by Tbeatty and by other like-minded editors, such as CyberAnth, are right on the mark. Jimbo Wales has said repeatedly that no information is preferable to poorly sourced derogatory information, and he has said it in the strongest and most crystal clear terms in the English language.
Left-wing POV warriors ignore that, however. They dredge up whatever negative information they can find about conservative organizations and politicians, no matter how unreliable the source. In the Free Republic article, they relied on Todd Brendan Fahey, a self-admitted drug addict and alcoholic who brags about the quantity and variety of drugs and alcohol he has abused, and the Walker/APJ combination of vicious partisanship and self-publication (even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Walker wrote it). ArbCom is urged to use this case as a platform to clarify a zero-tolerance, no compromises policy about poorly sourced derogatory material in article space, particularly in articles that are politically sensitive. Dino 13:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You appear to mistake your own biases for neutrality. New World Order is generally recopgnised as anti-semitic, removing sourced critical commentary is not WP:BLP it's whitewashing. Guy ( Help!) 11:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
I don't think I am party to this arbcom nor has any avenues of dispute resolution or comment been used. Regardless, I think those edits stand up to scrutiny and illustrate my point very well. Tbeatty 14:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
There are "Left-wing POV warriors" as well as "Righ-wing POV" warriors. Assessing involved editors contributions to the project, should be an aspect that the ArbCom should study. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Even here you misrepresent what I wrote. The question was about localized cooling of the U.K. which is a predicted outcome of some climate models that predict overall warming. The fact that global warming is occuring does not mean that there are not regions of cooling. In fact, the citation I provided was from the Union of Concerned Scientists which is a strong advocate of global warming theory. My pont was only that "global climate change" includes different changes in different parts of the world but the media focuses on global warming. It seems you have a beef with UCS, not me. -- Tbeatty 17:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The waters are already muddy enough without dragging Tbeatty in. His disaputes with FAAFA appear to be separate and largely unrelated, I don't think they illuminate the Free Republic case particularly. I don't see we should be making findings of fact in respect of Tbeatty and his interactions wiht others, or theirs with him, as that would be a separate ArbCom and would require separate prior dispute resolution. Guy ( Help!) 11:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Everyone who brings evidence to an Arbcom hearing can be studied for their actions, I believe its normalyl a warning that admins give to people and possibly its also on the arbcom page. Since TBeatty has choosen to involve themselves in this dispute and bring up evidence against FAAFA, that was taken from my userspace regarding actions that FAAFA has already been punished for, I think its only fair that their own actions are examined. -- Nuclear Zer0 17:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Tbeatty created a sock puppet account to taunt and harass me

Tbeatty created this sock puppet User:Fairness_and_Accuracy_for_Aquaman "Tbeatty's Super Friend Sock Puppet account" solely to taunt and harass me by vandalizing my user page. see He complains about my actions when his own actions have been similar, and he even created a sock puppet account solely to taunt and bait me. (kudos to TB for his dedication ! An SPA for a single act of taunting and baiting is 'impressive', to say the least !) More examples in Evidence - FAAFA

DeanHinnen edits disruptively

1) Hinnen's behaviour on Peter Roskam shows a pattern of disruptive editing, as does the dispute with respect to the original research and TJ's writings. The amount of disruption Hinnen has caused is out of all proportion with his substantive contributions to main space. Edits to the Roksam article include removal of sourced material [89], repeatedly re-inserting material judged trivial by other editors [90]. Comments off wiki [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1726044/posts] indicate a storng connection between Free Republic and Peter Roskam.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
"Removal of sourced material" enforces WP:BLP in this case, because Wikipedia must avoid the appearance of siding with the critics. That article, about a freshman Congressman with one month of service, was 10 times as long and contained far more criticism than the article about Dan Burton, a controversial 12-term congressman. It was 12 times as long and contained far more criticism than the article about Frank Ballance, a congressman who was sentenced to four years in prison for a felony committed while in office.
When reviewing the repeated re-insertion of material "judged trivial by other editors," the Arbitrators are asked to consider that in most cases, the "other editors" are BenBurch and FAAFA, dragging around the content dispute from Free Republic and Wikistalking me everywhere I go. Dino 13:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
So you say. But you have a far-right perspective, and others (including others who are long-standing editors not party to this dispute) disagree with both your interpretation and the way in which you pursued your agenda. Guy ( Help!) 11:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I want you to know, sir, that I deeply resent your use of the term "far right" to describe my perspective. I have resented it ever since the first time I saw it. Every time I've thought about it before now, I've become too angry to answer it in a civil manner. It carries with it inferences that I'm a member of the Ku Klux Klan, or the World Church of the Creator, or some similar hideously racist organization. Such pejoratives are lethal to collegiality. WP:AGF goes out the window. Please refactor that comment and do not employ such deeply offensive remarks in the future, sir.
I am an ordinary conservative, sir. Sixty-one million of us voted for George W. Bush in the 2004 election. We hold bake sales to support the local high school marching band. We apply fresh coats of white paint to our picket fences. We mow our lawns. We drive our children to soccer practice in minivans, and serve as Scoutmasters for Boy Scout troops. We go to church on Sunday mornings and enjoy softball games on Sunday afternoons.
We do not burn crosses on people's front lawns. Dino 20:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy ( Help!) 17:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Much more concerned about legal threats than POV pushing and there has been plenty of POV pushing by all parties here. If a ban is done on Dino based on his editing history, then much the same can also be said of FAAFA and to a lesser degree BenBurch.-- MONGO 05:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Not disputed. FAAFA is certainly disruptive. On the other hand, we can scarcely consider Dino's many, many assertions of disruptive editing of others without considering Dino's own editing style, which is combative to say the least. Guy ( Help!) 11:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I hesitate to get involved with this at all, but I'd like to register my deep puzzlement at the apparent connotations, heretofore unknown to me, of the term "far right." I consider myself far-left, but not radical, communist, socialist, anarchist, or any other analogy one might care to draw to extremist groups on the other end of the spectrum. I'm just significantly more liberal than most of the population - far to the left on the political spectrum. I've always used "far right" in a similar context, and never heard an objection from conservative friends or debate opponents. Not saying you have no grounds for offense, but please understand that the term may have been used in a spirit totally different from the one you seem to have attached to it. ShaleZero 21:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It's a term that can mean many different things, apparently, which is why using epithets to characterize an editor is generally not a good idea. Best to be avoided by all sides. Thatcher131 21:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

DeanHinnen is here for an argument

1) DeanHinnen ( talk · contribs) arrived with all guns blazing. Leaving aside the fact that his language throughout this RFAR has implied that he believes he's in an episode of The Sopranos, within his first couple of dozen edits were contributions to the baseless Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/BenBurch created by a sockpuppet of Bryan, requesting the indefinite blocking of BenBurch and FAAFA [91], archiving out discussion of sockpuppetry by Bryan [92] and making the much discussed and originally pretty overt legal threat [93]. The only reason for the delay in prosecuting his grievances against BenBurch and FAAFA appears to be that he was blocked from 15 Jan to 25 Jan, due to his editing from the same IP address as banned user BryanFromPalatine. Whether this is DeanHinnen's own fight or he is carrying on BryanFromPalatine's fight by proxy, it is clear that DeanHinnen's primary purpose in coming to Wikipedia was (a) to oppose the edits of liberal editors and (b) to pursue a vendetta against BenBurch and FAAFA. In this regard DeanHinnen's behaviour appears to closely mirror that of BryanFromPalatine.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Endorse - The very words I have been trying to find. -- BenBurch 20:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Loaded with the distortions and inflammatory language so characteristic of JzG's participation here. Dino 17:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. I think this is actually the crux of the problem: DeanHinenn has come here to "right great wrongs", but the Wikipedia community at large appears unconvinced that they are wrongs at all. Guy ( Help!) 14:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
a nit, there seems to be a stray apostrophe in the title and I think "all guns blazing" is rather more colorful than required but this does seem to be an accurate summary of matters. I'd note that when I gave Dean one of my many warnings and cautions, this was his reply, via email: "I believe I've done all the thinking that I need to do about how to fit it better around here." OK. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

DeanHinnen's edits advance a political agenda

1) DeanHinnen's edits to main space advance a political agenda in line with the Free Republic website and forums, e.g. [94] - on further investigation it turns out that (a) there is no evidence that Pelosi had specifically requested a C-32, and (b) White House Press Secretary Tony Snow characterized the story as "silly" and "unfair to the speaker.", further that neither the White House nor Pelosi's office were involved in direct negotiations over her transport and that it was a matter between the Sergeant at Arms and the Pentagon. Bill Livingood regretted that his security concerns and request to the Pentagon had been made into a political issue. This edit is at the very least highly questionable if not an outright violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy ( Help!) 17:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
So do FAFFA and BenBurch's edits. Individual editors can have agendas as long as they work well within the system and the resulting article does not itself have an agenda. The question is, did the behavior of the parties get in the way of this? Thatcher131 01:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The behaviour of the parties has been pretty poor, with the possible exception of BenBurch who at least shows willing when asked to pull back. The question, I feel, is: is the balance of good and bad a net positive? In Dean's case, I'd say not. I struggled to find a single uncontentious edit from him. Given that he is the newcomer, and has arrived primarily to carry on a fight for which we already banned one editor, I don't feel we're getting much out of the bargain. Guy ( Help!) 19:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

BenBurch has systematically destroyed evidence of his misconduct

1) In an effort to avoid a block or reduce its severity, BenBurch has deliberately and systematically destroyed or concealed evidence of the frequency and flagrancy of his violations of WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and possibly other policies. The Arbitration Committee will not reward such efforts to destroy or conceal evidence; instead, they force the Committee to assume the worst.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. For example, while BFP was blocked, BenBurch engaged in taunting him: placement of an image on BFP's Talk page, [95] then removing it after an admin objected. [96]
This is the URL address for the image: http://whiterosesociety.org/images/owned-cat.jpg Clicking on the link today produces a nice happy image of flowers. But at the time it was posted in December, as indicated by the image title "owned-cat.jpg" it was a color photo of a dead kitten stuffed into a jar. The jar was labeled, "Owned." As Webmaster of that website, BenBurch had no trouble switching that image for a more innocent-looking one to conceal his taunting of BFP.
No wonder JzG thinks this individual is less culpable than FAAFA.
Similarly, these links once led to the archives of BenBurch's Talk page:
Archive 1 Beginning - June 2006
Archive 2 June 2006 - December 3rd 2006
BenBurch has redirected these links, because the archives of his Talk page were wallpapered with previous warnings about his misconduct. He realized that his own Talk archives supported him in the same way that a hangman's noose supports a condemned criminal. So he destroyed the links, forcing anyone attempting to make a case against him to laboriously reconstruct that evidence from the page history.
The Arbitration Committee is strongly encouraged to explicitly condemn the destruction and concealment of such evidence, and discourage similar actions in all future ArbCom proceedings, by taking the necessary action against BenBurch. Dino 02:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This is what Archive 1 should probably look like.
This is what Archive 2 should probably look like.
Somehow, this exchange got snipped out between Archive 1 and Archive 2, so perhaps the Committee should take a look at it. Dino 02:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You do realize that you have pasted the wrong links, right? Those never were the links I had on my User Talk page. Those links were;
Archive 1 Beginning - June 2006
Archive 2 June 2006 - December 3rd 2006
And I discontinued linking them because I adopted a policy of blanking my User Talk page when I feel like it and letting people use the history if they really want something old.
Now, how you getting your links wrong equals me concealing something though my hackerly black arts is something that you had best now explain to the assembled multitudes.
And let me depart from strict civility for a moment to say that this allegation is a crock. -- BenBurch 04:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You do realize that you have pasted the wrong links, right? Those never were the links I had on my User Talk page.
We'll see about that in the morning, when I have a little more time to investigate. In the meantime, would you care to explain how that "owned-cat.jpg" photo on your website got switched to a photo of a couple of pretty little flowers, and would you care to post the original photo of a dead kitten stuffed in a jar with the label "Owned" right here? And by the way, would you please provide further details about the left-wing meatpuppet recruiting that you've been doing at Democratic Underground since October 2005? Thanks. Dino 04:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I *never* posted a picture of a dead cat in a jar. And I defy you to prove that I did. I love cats and would only *ever* post pictures of live cats, though sometimes they are doing ridiculous things. Retract that obscene statement. -- BenBurch 14:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
There, it's a cat in a container again. Happy?  :-) -- BenBurch 14:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Okay, Dean, since you now know this was your error, please retract it. -- BenBurch 22:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Still no retraction or apology as of this date in spite of having had it proven to him that he made a gross error. -- BenBurch 19:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute is alleged disruptive editing of the article Free Republic (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). On the one side, Fairness And Accuracy For All ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly known as NBGPWS ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) and BenBurch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are allegedly anti-Free Republic; on the other side are DeanHinnen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who claims to work for Free Republic, and BryanFromPalatine ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
"Allegedly anti-Free Republic." Well, let's see. Where should I begin? There's so much evidence. BenBurch is the founder and administrator of a website called WhiteRoseSociety.org which seeks to prove that the Bush Administration represents the rise of fascism in America. "Fighting the Rise of the New Fascism." The website has provided several puerile "Bush = Hitler" references in the past. Since the lead of the Free Republic article described it as a "rubber stamp for Bush Administration policy" for a couple of months, the COI should be obvious. BenBurch also acknowledges that he was a long-term and active member of Democratic Underground, a left-wing rival of Free Republic, before he was banned. (That admission was made on his Talk page and he recently deleted links to his archives, thereby concealing and effectively destroying the evidence against him.)
FAAFA has also admitted that he is a member of DU, posting there "at least once or twice a week." [97] He speaks in hushed and reverent tones about BenBurch's work on WhiteRoseSociety.org. The COI problems of these two should be very, very clear. Dino 21:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
"hushed and reverent tones" That was good Hinnen! You do have a flair for fragrant hyperbole! FAAFA
Comment by others:
Proposed. Got to begin at the beginning. Thatcher131 14:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The real beginning was when BenBurch started recruiting meatpuppets at Democratic Underground in October 2005. Dino 22:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Additional disputes

2) In addition to the Free Republic dispute, Tbeatty ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has introduced evidence alleging that Fairness And Accuracy For All/NBGPWS is and has been a contentious and disruptive editor on many other articles. Much of this evidence has already been the subject of a Request for comment.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. More basic background. Thatcher131 14:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, Precisely, there is a prior Rfc and sadly, the situation detailed there has continued unabated.-- MONGO 05:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Note to MONGO : I learned from one of the best! (but I try to use more sarcasm) LINK I am forever in your debt ;-) - FAAFA 06:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, problems seem to persist wherever you edit.-- MONGO 09:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
But the attempts to cover your tracks never seems to work well.-- MONGO 09:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Cover my tracks? That sounds like a 'CT' to me MONGO! ;-) I changed that post to make it even more descriptive and accurate! (and less biting) Too bad I don't have admin powers and then I could erase my posts and even their histories, eh? Lighten up, bro! It's all good! (since 11/8 anyway) Peace, bro! - FAAFA 10:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It should be noted that MONGO has had a long history of opposing FAAFA and standing up for TBeatty. It should also be noted that most of TBeatty's evidence was taken from my userspace where it was compiled and dealt with in a RfC that led to a good outcome for everyone but myself and FAAFA. Using past events that have already led to punishments and resolutions in an Arbcom, in order to bring more punishment, is overkill, its also not preventative, its double punishment, and against the point of Arbcom. -- Nuclear Zer0 17:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
In my proposed findings of fact, I'm going to stick to the BFP/Dean vs FAFFA/BB matter. The arbitrators can certainly pursue Tbeatty's evidence if they want, or Tbeatty could try to open a separate case. Thatcher131 01:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Wise choice. Otherwise this'll be all over the project by the time it's done. Guy ( Help!) 20:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Free Republic

3) An edit war developed at Free Republic on December 9 over the insertion of critical material. [98] [99] [100] [101] BryanFromPalatine was blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR. [102]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
More background. Thatcher131 14:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I think we need more on the FR war. I've also moved FAFFA's proposals here since they related to FR rather than Roskam. Thatcher131 01:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Guilt by association

3.1) The disputed edits seek to portray Free Republic in a negative light through guilt by association. [103] [104] [105] [106] [107]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Evidence will show that BenBurch and I have been NPOV and fair in our edits to the Free Republic article (WP:NPOV states "all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one") and furthermore, several admins noted that Dino/Bryan and their proxies had attempted to exclude any and all valid sourced criticism. A review of the edit history will show that I added much more info that is neutral or even 'positive' than info which could be considered critical. Such additions were a) Jim Robinson biographical history b) FR's couterprotest activities in opposition to Code Pink at Walter Reed Hospital c) Tony's Snow's FR participation d) The Dixie Chicks 'crediting' FR as being 'instrumental' in the country-music station boycott of their music. - FAAFA
Until very recently, your edits consisted of an effort to find any negative material about Free Republic anywhere on the Internet — no matter how abysmally sourced in partisan self-publication, drug abuse and alcoholism — and dump it into the article, in complete disregard for WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, WP:BLP, WP:RS and Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises. The January 7 version of the article is a hatchet job, and a side-by-side comparison of that version with Democratic Underground confirms that it's a hatchet job, sir. Dino 18:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Every diff I cited shows an attempt to portray Free Republic (the forum) in a bad light based on the statements of selected posters, or the founder. You're smart enough to know that you can't come right out and say "Free Republic supports death threats against liberals." [108] Trying to accomplish the same thing through guilt by association, even using a reliable source, doesn't make it acceptable. Thatcher131 00:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:NPOV states "all significant published points of view are to be presented" - FAAFA 02:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
See here, for example. Thatcher131 03:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Here are more examples of my bad light - dare I call them smear tactics ? :
JimRob Bio and
Tony Snow and
Dixie Chicks and
Discussion (important reading as it shows Bryan's sock invasion) and
Walter Reed (entire Walter Reed - Code Pink section written by 'moi') - FAAFA 08:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Note to Thatcher131 : Your own political procilivities are well-known and I expect will be taken into account by any astute and aware Arbitrator. Some may eventually succeed in whitewashing the Free Republic article as is their goal, but any interested reader need only venture off Wiki and read Free Republic itself - and comments from the founder himself - comments such as calling genuine American War Hero and Prisoner of War (over 5 years) John McCain [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1601416/posts 'A treasonous bastard'] and 'traitor to your country' and they will find the truth. Carry on ! ;-) - FAAFA 06:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment in response to DeanHinnen's comment below. The documentation of 100 people showing up at an event FR hoped 20,000 would show up at is an entirely different section, written at a totally different time than the Walter Reed section. Also, FR's Kristinn Taylor said 20,000, and it's in the WAPO article. You've claimed 10,000 more than once. I suggest you review the advice you've been given on Original Research and stop playing fast and loose with the truth. - FAAFA 19:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Content, may or may not be germane. Thatcher131 17:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This ArbCom case is about editors' behavior. Nothing else. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree. Two editors were seeking to portray Free Republic in a negative light through guilt by association. That is part of their behavior. In an attempt to rehabilitate his track record, FAAFA started writing the Walter Reed/Code Pink section, but even that was spin-doctored in a way that cast Free Republic in a bad light, i.e. specifying that a rally organizer prepared for 10,000 people and only 100 showed up. Dino 13:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Somewhat problematic. Consider: if an animal rights group has a number of members who become known for taking direct action, and the group does nothing to distance itself from that, including leaving their posts on its web forums unmoderated, does that not reflect on the group? All we need here are reliable secondary sources who make the connection; if the connection is made and said to be significant by reliable secondary sources then we need to reflect it in the article.. Guy ( Help!) 18:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

FAAFA's early FR efforts were in Good Faith

3.2) It is proposed that FAAFA's participation in editing and discussing the Free Republic article was within the bounds of WP, and showed civility and harmony, good faith, and a willingness to compromise and reach consensus, even with parties with whom he disagreed, (anon-IP no-history disruptive editors excluded) prior to the arrival of BryanFromPalatine on Dec. 05, 2007. -

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. FAAFA 00:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
It would be less confusing to comment on existing proposals than to write your own that are just the opposite of what I said. Thatcher131 00:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It says before the arrival of BryanFP on Dec 05. Read the page histories if you don't believe me. - FAAFA 01:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
"he started it" is not a particularly strong defense. Thatcher131 01:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I'll look into pre-BFP editing. Thatcher131 01:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I ask you to honestly consider if 'he started it' - when 'HE' was DeanHinnen's admitted 'brother' - who created over a half-dozen highly-developed sock puppet account-personas to 'vote', participate in structured mediation and sway consensus - and the individual RFCU's (all conclusive) and ANI's, etc, that took weeks of time that could have been spent editing - wouldn't affect any editor's conduct. AND, I freely admit that after DeanHinnen's second day, when we found the TJ Walker article Hinnen denied that he wrote, and his dealings with WMF were exposed - I suspended AGF as allowed under AGF. - FAAFA 02:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
There have been a couple of arbitration cases where the arbitrators only took action against the worst offender, on the expectation that with that editor removed, everyone else would settle down. You will note I am not proposing any remedies, just trying to lay out the facts (with some interpretation) in a messy business where a lot of the early workshop proposals were of the "Mom, he touched me!" "He touched me first!" variety. It will be interesting to see whether the arbitrators take this narrow view (advocated by your other proposals) or a broader view. Thatcher131 02:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The state of Free Republic on December 4 was not good. one version You have multiple instances of guilt by association, unsourced POV criticism, and almost no reliable sources except inline links to FR. You have nothing to be proud about. Thatcher131 14:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply

BenBurch's early FR efforts were in Good Faith

3.3) It is proposed that BenBurch's participation in editing and discussing the Free Republic article was within the bounds of WP, and showed civility and harmony, good faith, and a willingness to compromise and reach consensus, even with parties with whom he disagreed, (anon-IP no-history disruptive editors excluded) prior to the arrival of BryanFromPalatine on Dec. 05, 2006. -

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
FAAFA 00:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply


Comment by others:
It would be less confusing to comment on my proposal rather than just write a new proposal that is the opposite of what I said. Thatcher131 00:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It says before the arrival of BryanFP on Dec 05. Read the page histories if you don't believe me. - FAAFA 01:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Ditto above. Thatcher131 01:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

BryanFromPalatine was disruptive and exhausted good faith

3.4) BryanFromPalatine was disruptive, incivil, and acted in a manner that would exhaust the good faith of any editor.

  • Dec. 06: If you're going to mention that Chad Castagana was a freeper in the Free Republic article, I'm going to start rummaging through all the articles about left-of-center organizations and making sure that their John Wayne Gacys are mentioned prominently. link
  • Dec. 07: Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Turnabout is fair play. What goes around, comes around. If it is appropriate for Wikipedia to include information about Chad Castagana and the Chuy's in the FR article, then it is appropriate to include information about every registered Democratic Party voter who was ever found guilty of a crime in the Democratic Party article; it is appropriate to include information about every person who ever had an account at DU who was ever found guilty of a crime in the DU article; etc., etc. link
  • Dec. 08: Regarding the inclusion of Chad Castagana material in this article, I've journeyed to the article about the Democratic Party and added a section about John Wayne Gacy, as well as two Democratic presidents who have been impeached, and 23 Democratic Congressmen who have been convicted on criminal charges in the past 40 years link


Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed : - FAAFA 02:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
There may well be merit to laying out these facts but the use of bolding and scare quotes etc. for effect may not be very useful. Best to rewrite this as much more neutral, I think. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It actually was pretty good. I've rewritten a bit. If adopted, the arbitrators may drop the quotes and keep the links, but not a bad idea to put the quotes up. Thatcher131 22:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Sockpuppetry by BryanFromPalatine

4) After being blocked, BryanFromPalatine edited Free Republic and Talk:Free Republic using a variety of IP addresses and sockpuppets (see evidence [109] [110] [111] [112] and checkuser results. Bryan was blocked twice more and then banned for disruption [113].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Background. Thatcher131 14:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes. We should probably look out the ANI threads here, Bryan's disruption was discussed several times before a ban was enacted. Guy ( Help!) 12:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

FAAFA used poorly sourced negative material in a biographical article

In January 2007, FAAFA repeatedly added poorly sourced negative information (in violation of WP:RS) to the lead of the article about Free Republic, which has previously sued and won $60,000 from the City of Fresno for libel. The material contained an allegation that Free Republic was negligent in allowing death threats about President Clinton to remain on the site for several months. The only source on the Internet containing this allegation was an extremely partisan left-wing website called AmericanPolitics.com, which expresses pride in mocking and ridiculing George W. Bush and the "neo-con cabal" that supports him. The material covered the period prior to 2001, when Jim Robinson was the sole operator of the website and was the only person responsible for policing its content. To the extent that this is an article about Jim Robinson, a living person, this editing was in violation of WP:BLP. During the course of the month of January, AmericanPolitics.com deleted the material from its own website pages in spite of its stated commitment to ridicule Bush and the "neo-con cabal."

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Dino 13:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:

DeanHinnen

5) DeanHinnen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who claims to be associated with Free Republic's legal team, contacted the Wikimedia Foundation about an allegation that Free Republic was negligent in allowing death threats about President Clinton to remain on the site. This claim was sourced to an online publication by journalist TJ Walker; DeanHinnen alleges the article is a hoax and was not written by Walker. WMF employee Carolyn-WMF ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) suggested DeanHinnen edit the article himself, but also removed the allegation. [114] Dean explains the edit [115]. BenBurch recreated the paragraph using a different source [116].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
One extremely important point, Thatcher. The "recreated paragraph" that used "a different source" did not allege "that Free Republic was negligent in allowing death threats about President Clinton to remain on the site." The distinction is critical. Any website open to editing by the public and dealing with politics, particularly in the polarized atmosphere of the past 14 years, is going to have a few threats of violence posted now and then. Free Republic deletes them immediately. The first version of the paragraph was libelous. The second was merely biased: something we've come to expect when Democratic Underground alumni are writing an article about Free Republic. Dino 03:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
And of course Freepers are never biased at all :-) Guy ( Help!) 12:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Continuing. Thatcher131 17:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

DeanHinnen blocked

5.1) DeanHinnen was blocked as a sockpuppet of BryanFromPalatine. After discussion on unblock-L, he was unblocked. Dean claims to be BryanFromPalatine's brother; checkuser shows they use the same IP address.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Laying out the history some more. Thatcher131 17:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I think it was established "use the same IP address at times" not exclusively the same ones. Georgewilliamherbert 00:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Let's be clear about this. Many alleged sockpuppets had no RFCUs. At least two alleged sockpuppets (ArlingtonTX and 12ptHelvetica) never used this IP address. BFP himself edited only very briefly from this IP address. DP1976 and ClemsonTiger made extensive use of this IP address. Dino 16:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Let's be clear about this. All the blocked socks, including you, showed identical, identically disruptive, and identically obsessive behaviour. We are not required to bother CheckUsers when the otucome is blindingly obvious - indeed they habitually reject obvious cases on precisely those grounds. You originally appeared different because you also made legal threats, which the others had not, but since we now have the statements from past disputants that Bryan's full name is Bryan Dean Hinnen the time is come when we should apply the duck test. Guy ( Help!) 14:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Legal threats by DeanHinnen

5.2) User:DeanHinnen has posted implied legal threats. [117], [118].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Discussion Fred Bauder 16:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Nonsense. I have always made it absolutely crystal clear that I was trying to PREVENT litigation. The finding of Unblock-en-l unanimously confirmed that I was seeking in good faith to remove libelous material from the Free Republic article. Dino 23:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Notice DeanHinnen's wording below implying that he is a party to FR's legal actions : "" We didn't sue APJ because..." and "Please do something about this before Wikipedia gets sued, the way the City of Fresno got sued."' - FAAFA 23:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse - As far as I can tell, whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen is here specifically to legally intimidate Wikipedia and its college of editors into removing all criticism of the über-far-right political causes, groups, and politicians he represents. -- BenBurch 15:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply


Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy ( Help!) 23:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree that those comments are implied legal threats. If an attorney for Company Y shows up and says "Nice encyclopedia. It would be a shame if anything happened to it, like, say, getting sued by Company Y," I think it's fair to say he has made a threat. Particularly for the BLP notice, I am broadly sympathetic to Dean's point that an organization should be extended similar protection to a person, and I appreciate that he seems to have been trying to get attention to that point. Still, IMHO, Guy is right on this issue. TheronJ 22:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If an attorney for Company Y shows up and says "Nice encyclopedia. It would be a shame if anything happened to it, like, say, getting sued by Company Y," I think it's fair to say he has made a threat.
First of all, that's not what I said sir. That's what Tony Soprano's thugs would say to the bakery cashier. Second, I point out yet again that I'm not Free Republic's legal counsel. Let me be completely clear about this. I am merely a volunteer for the legal team. Like Wikipedia, Free Republic is run almost entirely by volunteers, each of whom provides his own professional expertise in his own area of expertise, free of charge. Like Wikipedia, Free Republic has one attorney who gets paid, but it isn't me. I collect no fees. I work pro bono. I have never participated in litigation for them in any capacity. I do not decide who they sue and who they don't sue. Without exception, I have always advised against litigation, preferring instead to seek amicable resolutions of disputes; and in those disputes where I've participated, I have always been successful.
There is no reason why I couldn't serve in a similar capacity for Wikipedia if we can just get past the current unpleasantness, and get these two off my back.
There are many stars in the Free Republic galaxy; and I'm just a faint little star out on the edge of that galaxy. Others shine much more brightly. My brother, for example, has been quite the accomplished legal warrior for them. Several years ago, he was instrumental in negotiating the reduction of a summary judgment (against Free Republic) of about $2 Million in the Los Angeles Times lawsuit down to a mere $10,000. This was more than a 99% reduction. Failure would have meant death for Free Republic. They literally saved the website. Furthermore, the negotiated settlement removed any suggestion from the final order that Free Republic violated copyright law. It was absolutely brilliant. And there have been other brilliant victories that didn't get as much publicity, such as the City of Fresno case. I've done nothing approaching that.
But on a clear night, I can provide a little bit of light ... and perhaps gently illuminate an amicable solution here and there. Notice that the libelous material in the Free Republic article has now been removed. Dino 03:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Dean, your vexatiousness is exceeded only by your hubris. Stop grandstanding. Guy ( Help!) 15:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
When I remain quiet, people lie about me; but when I speak up, I'm accused of making legal threats, or grandstanding, or "vexatious process," etc., etc. Dino 17:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Dean, per Wikipedia policies, concerned parties can either deal with problem articles by using back channels, including talking to lawyers and making legal threats if they feel that is necessary, or by editing the articles on Wiki through the normal editorial process. Making legal threats on Wiki is prohibited. Explaining how successful you have been in defending Free Republic, or claiming that you are here to save Wikipedia from lawsuits, may be admirable, but it entirely misses the point of the WP:NLT policy. Thatcher131 17:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Understood. I apologize. Dino 18:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Good! Now, care to apologize for using sock puppets, for being disruptive, for attacking any number of people? Then we'd be getting somewhere close to resolving this problem. -- BenBurch 18:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

About that lawsuit..... "How FreeRepublic.com lost a "First Amendment" lawsuit and wasted $110,000 on a frivolous lawsuit – and how their right-wing nutcase attorney got disbarred". Since Hinnen now claims that APJ removed the TJ Walker article because it was 'libelous', this one must be accurate, or, as a member of Free Republic's legal team, he would have had them remove it too. They seem to have an entirely different 'take' on this lawsuit. - FAAFA 14:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Good. Keep dragging around that unreliable partisan source like a stray dog with a mouth full of roadkill. It tells all who see your posts here exactly what you're all about. We didn't sue APJ because they're a small-circulation partisan nest of vipers. It would cost a lot of money and the benefits would be minimal. Just consider the source and that article will be seen for what it is: a web of lies, distortion and ridicule carefully woven around a few tiny bits of truth. Dino 17:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
But you claimed : (regarding the TJ Walker article) "AmericanPolitics.com pulled the article and blanked the page. They did this because it was libelous, and they didn't want to get sued like the City of Fresno got sued. Please do something about this before Wikipedia gets sued, the way the City of Fresno got sued." link I'll find the quotes where you talk about how litigious FR and JimRob were, and how JimRob 'liked' to sue people. Odd that you would spend $110,000 to sue one troll - but not to sue a site that is anything but 'low circulation' as you falsely claim - a site that has a second 'libelous' article about FR on it! American Politics Journal is the fastest-growing political magazine on the Internet - Over 39 million hits per year -Nearly 4500 articles archived online -Over 10,000 subscribers to the daily e-mail edition, including some of America's foremost opinion makers. about APJ - FAAFA 00:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I've moved this to fit my current train of thought. I think these comments are fairly described above by Theron ("Nice encyclopedia. It would be a shame if anything happened to it,").
About APJ
Thanks for that moment of candor. Here's what they're all about: revenge for the way Bill Clinton was treated by Free Republic and other conservative critics. "[We] subscribe to the doctrine of columnist Paul Kirkpatrick [expressed after the December 2000 Supreme Court decision], who could not have put it better: 'I will give our new president the same level of support and encouragement that was given to the current administration by such luminaries as Tom DeLay, Trent Lott, Rush Limbaugh, Richard [Mellon] Scaife, Ted Olson, [Paul Greenberg] and, of course, George W. himself. In other words, I will badmouth the president daily, I will work in whatever small way I can to defeat and undermine his programs and agenda ... and I will criticize and ridicule his wife and children at every opportunity.' The same goes for the neo-fascist cabal that tried to 'bring down' President Bill Clinton ... We mock and ridicule their views, their overweening arrogance, their proto-fascist leanings -" and are willing and eager to republish any lie, from any source, as long as it makes Free Republic and the rest of the "neo-fascist cabal" look bad.
"We mock and ridicule their views ..." No wonder you've defended them like the Japanese defended Iwo Jima. They're exactly your kind of people. Dino 03:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Was any of this said on Wikipedia? Is any of it provably attributable to parties in this case? Or is it simply guilt-by-association? If you have no evidence that these statements were made by parties in this case or made on Wikipedia, the above should simply be removed to talk as pointless irrelevant bluster. It does, however, illuminate the way your mind works and suggest the way your external agenda might fity your actions on Wikipedia. Several of us have concluded that you came here solely to pursue the agenda of the Free Republic website, and the statement above does indeed make it appear that not only is this your main agenda, but that your problem with the other partyies is entirely down to their political beliefs, which you clearly despise, rather than their editing. It weakens very considerably your claims of harrassment, by underscoring your bias and making it seem that anything they did would be unacceptable according to you. Guy ( Help!) 09:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Was any of this said on Wikipedia? Is any of it provably attributable to parties in this case?
That's the source whose libel FAAFA inserted into the lead of the article. Then both BenBurch and FAAFA fiercely defended it. FAAFA's worship of that virulently hate-filled website is crystal clear, sir: American Politics Journal is the fastest-growing political magazine on the Internet - Over 39 million hits per year -Nearly 4500 articles archived online -Over 10,000 subscribers to the daily e-mail edition, including some of America's foremost opinion makers. Take a look at the mission statement of BenBurch's website: "Fighting the Rise of the New Fascism," referring to George W. Bush.
Then look at their editing pattern: exclusively introducing criticism into articles about conservative politicians and organizations without regard for WP:RS or WP:BLP, while turning up the heat with inflammatory language such as "purged"; exclusively removing and muting criticism, no matter how well-founded, from articles about left-wing politicians and organizations; relentlessly attacking anyone who stands in their way; and very recently, attempting to conceal the evidence of their POV pushing with a few token edits in the opposite direction. Dino 17:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply

DeanHinnen wrote ; "There is no reason why I couldn't serve in a similar capacity [legal advisor] for Wikipedia if we can just get past the current unpleasantness, and get these two off my back." Now that's funny ! ;-) - FAAFA 07:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hinnen still making implied legal threats: "In fact, isn't there an injunction against you? And don't you need to post a link to the text of the injunction on your User page at Wikipedia? Does failure to post that link constitute a violation of the injunction?" User:DeanHinnen|Dino 15:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC) link - FaAfA (yap) 21:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply

DeanHinnen is uncivil

5.3) DeanHinnen has been uncivil. Trolling [119] [120]. Personal remarks [121]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
For the "trolling," although it wasn't intended that way, I was blocked without a nanosecond of hesitation for 24 hours. For the other "personal remark," all are invited to make of it what they will. Dino 17:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. Thatcher131 00:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Peter Roskam

6) DeanHinnen, BenBurch and Fairness And Accuracy For All have edit warred at Peter Roskam (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). [122]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I don't think I have edit warred there AT ALL. I have taken every dispute I had over edits to talk. -- BenBurch 20:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. Thatcher131 00:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't think Ben was a problem there. Calton removed text, Dino reverted, Ben reverted again with a civil edit summary and, in line with that edit summary, took it to talk. Or do you have a different set of edits in mind? Guy ( Help!) 21:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

DeanHinnen at Peter Roskam

6.1) DeanHinnen's edits to Peter Roskam include removal of sourced material [123], repeatedly re-inserting material judged trivial by other editors [124]. Hinnen also removed poorly sourced negative information and guilt by association. "This article was far too long and contained far more criticism than Dan Burton, controversial 12-term Congressman" [125] [126] [127] (See this comment on the talk page and this sensible response.)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Peter Roskam is presently fully protected owning to Dean Hinnen's unabated edit-warring; [128] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenBurch ( talk • contribs)
Comment by others:
Proposed. Thatcher131 00:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I protected the article because of edit warring. I'm not entirely sure that DeanH is the only one to blame here. Rather than reflexively hit the block button for one user I protected the article to see if anyone is willing to work productively on the talk page. In my opinion as an editor, both sides have valid concerns with each others' edits. The problem is reverting without meaningful discussion and compromise. Thatcher131 16:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Fairness And Accuracy For All at Peter Roskam

6.2) FAAFA added negative information that was either poorly sourced or guilt by association that was of little direct relevance. [129] [130] They also removed positive information about Roskam that was judged to be of minor importance. [131] [132] [133].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Thatcher131 00:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

BenBurch at Peter Roskam

6.3) BenBurch added negative information that was either poorly sourced or guilt by association that was of little direct relevance. [134] [135] [136] They also removed positive information about Roskam that was judged to be of minor importance. [137] [138].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I deny the allegation. and I deny the alligator! I added material I believed than and believe now was sufficiently well sourced for this article and was NOT either guilt by association or of little direct relevance. I removed material that other editors agreed was too trivial to remain in the article. Nothing I have done on Peter Roskam has been anything but good edits intended to improve the article. -- BenBurch 15:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. Thatcher131 00:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
At least one of these was a repeat of a removal by User:Calton [139], the removal having been reverted several times by DeanHinnen without discussion on Talk. BenBurch took the text to Talk [140], with a civil edit summary [141]. Is Crain's Chicago Business a poor source? [142] Are we not allowed to mention ongoing funding controversy? Guy ( Help!) 13:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I live in the district of a conservative Republican congressman (call him Jones). About once a month I will get an anonymous recorded phone call (in violation of several telephone solicitation and election laws, FWIW) stating something like, "Congressman Smith received dirty money from a lobbyist, and gave some of it to Jones' campaign fund. Call Jones and demand that he return this dirty money." It certainly would be a scandal if Jones had received money directly from a lobbyist in return for political favors. It might be a scandal if the lobbyist were accused of improper fundraising, depending on whether Jones knew the money might be tainted. But if neither Smith nor the lobbyist have been accused of any wrongdoing by competent authorities (political opponents excepted, of course), then this is just an attempt to smear Jones through his association with Smith. In the Roskam case the "scandal" is manufactured by Roskam's opponents using two layers of guilt by association, i.e. the House leadership failed to act against Mark Foley, therefore they are complicit in "keeping Foley's secret"; the House leadership controls a pot of campaign funds, therefore anyone who accepts such funds will "rubberstamp" the decisions of the corrupt leadership. If you actually read the Crain's article, its nothing more than political theater. Thatcher131 13:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Coverage of an issue by a non partisan secondary source would 'decide' its notability. It could be argued that in the run-up to an election, where lots of issues (some manufactured by opponents) come to light in local media - that not all of it is notable. I think that might be the case with Peter Roskam - and that's for the editors who are working on any article to reach consensus on. That's the salient problem with political articles. Adept partisan 'Wikilawyers' (no names!) and consensus can turn any article into a hatchet-job or a hagiography, and unless its brought up for comment (and enough people care about it) or for mediation - nothing can be done about it. - FAAFA 23:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Crain's Chicago Business certainly is a RV-V publication. It is *the* Chicago financial paper. -- BenBurch 02:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Fairness And Accuracy For All is uncivil

7) User:Fairness And Accuracy For All is uncivil, and has engaged in baiting and trolling DeanHinnen. [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149]. Adding Image:Tin foil hat 2.jpg [150]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I propose: A hat-tip to my bud MortyD for the ever-useful 'tin' foil hat pic! (can I get a second?) - FAAFA
Comment by others:
Proposed. Thatcher131 00:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This is not funny, FAAFA. Georgewilliamherbert 01:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Joke or not, the finding is true. FAAFA has been uncivil. Durova Charge! 06:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply

BenBurch is uncivil

8) BenBurch has made uncivil comments to DeanHinnen, including baiting and trolling. [151] [152] [153] [154] "Hell yes I said bring it on. I can think of no other way to force him to get the attention of enough admins to finally get one of them to deal with him." [155]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Thatcher131 01:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Stalking by Fairness and Accuracy for All and BenBurch

9) Fairness and Accuracy for All and BenBurch had never edited Nancy Pelosi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) or Bill Nelson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) until after DeanHinnen edited there. [156] You're spouting tin foil hattery nonsense about DU. [157] [158] [159] It's obvious that dishonest POV warriors have been to work here

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
DeanHinnen made it clear (just like his brother and his brother's many socks) that after failing to archive his goals of 'whitewashing' the Free Republic article, he would try to attack the articles of liberal politicians. (only days after claiming that his only reason for being on Wiki was to prevent Wiki for being sued by Free Republic, an org who claims to represent as part of their 'legal team') (diffs coming) - FAAFA 01:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Did he actually come out and say that or was it your inference? (got a diff?) Also, while it may be acceptable or even a good idea to check somebody's other edits, I think your conduct in doing so left something to be desired. Thatcher131 01:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Looking for diffs - found this exchange from an Admin:
"I'm just trying to make the Republicans' articles and the Democrats' articles resemble one another. That's my agenda."(Dino) Then a good idea would be to make Republican articles better, not Democrat articles worse. Otherwise, WP:POINT, really. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:48, 13 Feb
It surprised me that Dino needs to be reminded that Wikipedia is not a soapbox; his pronouncements about Pelosi's alleged hypocrisy show clearly his reasons for including the material: not that it improves the article, but that it furthers his own agenda. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:59, 13 Feb Link - FAAFA 03:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Then a good idea would be to make Republican articles better, not Democrat articles worse.
I notice that you've taken great care to snip off my answer to JPGordon's comment, which is characteristic of your efforts to distort the evidence here. My answer was this: how, exactly, does well-sourced and notable criticism from a newspaper with one of the largest circulations in North America make the article worse? Before I added that comment, it was virtually devoid of criticism. One does not spend 20+ years in the House of Representatives and rise to the post of Speaker of the House, while adhering to a political position that is not even slightly moderate, without getting criticism from notable sources.
At any rate, it's been removed and I'm not challenging its removal. Instead, I've provided criticism from a Democratic Senate candidate, reported in exclusively left-of-center publications and I've heard not the slightest whisper of opposition. Apparently that is the only way to insert criticism in an article about a left-wing politician or organization here at Wikipedia, without being attacked and shouted down. The criticism must come from the left, and it must be published by the left, because only the left can be trusted.
Edit: This has proven to be prophetic. I've just made an attempt to insert criticism from a neutral and very reliable source, the Washington Post, concerning Pelosi's rejection of part of her own 100-Hour Plan within days of the November election. And I've been slapped down for it. Dino 15:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
... after failing to archive his goals of 'whitewashing' the Free Republic article, he would try to attack the articles of liberal politicians. ... (diffs coming)
I deny it. In fact, I've explicitly stated on at least two occasions that my goal is not to whitewash anything. Looking forward to seeing those diffs, sir. Dino 20:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Four days later. Still no diffs, but you've had plenty of time to carefully craft a demand for Arbitrators to call the Police Department. I take that to mean you can't find any diffs. Dino 16:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I maintain that I have stalked NOBODY. All of my edits to articles have been intended to improve those articles, and all reverts have been directed to discussion on article pages. This allegation is baseless. -- BenBurch 19:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. Thatcher131 01:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
And during this proceeding, he was [ blocked] for Wikistalking another editor. -- Tbeatty 13:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Mutual combat

1) DeanHinnen, FAAFA, and BenBurch engaged in mutual combat using Wikipedia as a venue; blame for initiating the dispute is not practical to apportion, and all parties are equally guilty of continuing and expanding it in various methods and numerous on-wiki venues.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. I don't think that trying to find "who started it" will get anywhere, and it doesn't matter. Georgewilliamherbert 00:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Up to a point. I think Dino and FAAFA are undoubtedly equally to blame, I am not so sure about BenBurch. Guy ( Help!) 12:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
He's been content to allow FAAFA to do most of the dirty work, sir, without making the slightest effort to restrain him. Dino 17:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Now, how on earth would I restrain him? Tell me exactly how? -- BenBurch 01:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Do you really need to ask, sir? You could have made remarks like this one, [160] but directed to him .... over and over and over. You could have sent him e-mails. You could have said, "Hey, if you're going down that road, you'll be going alone." But you didn't, sir. And you just kept on not doing anything like that, sir. Instead, you kept on accompanying him on search and destroy missions. Actions speak louder than words. By being there with him each and every time, and saying nothing to restrain him, you were loudly voicing your complete approval of everything he said and did. It's another facet of this case that JzG has "comprehensively ignored," sir. Dino 02:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Dino, have you ever, once, in all your life, considered keeping your mouth shut and letting other people get on with considering things? Your comment above makes me even more convinced that you are pursuing a vendetta and have no caring about the collateral damage you might cause, or the actual facts of the case. BenBurch is consistently more civil and greatly less argumentative than either you or FAAFA (of which pair you are currently the more disruptive by a wide margin), massively more so than Bryan ever was, and Ben seems to be genuinely prepared to work for a solution. The only solution you appear to be prepared to countenance is a vindictive ban against Be and FAAFA in retaliation for the ban your brother brought on himself by his own actions. The more you post the more I am convinced that you have no place on this project. Too combative and too dogmatic by half. Guy ( Help!) 09:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Dino, have you ever, once, in all your life, considered keeping your mouth shut and letting other people get on with considering things?
Yes, sir. Of course I've thought about it, sir. "Just shut up and go away" seems to be the prescribed remedy, sir. But when others constantly lie about the evidence, and deliberately post personal details in a manner that could expose my family to harassment, should I just shut up and take it? Dino 14:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Since you are so concerned, the best result is undoubtedly to shut up and go away. Your presence appears to have caused problems for your family which did not previously exist. Amazingly, your combative attitude has resulted in an escalation of the problem - who could have predicted that? I recommend you go to some other website where your bias and argumentation will be welcome. Guy ( Help!) 21:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Here's a peculiar thing about that analysis. The problems, and the escalation, were started on January 15. They were not caused by my presence here, but by a disclosure of BFP's personal information. I did not make that disclosure. All of my posts on January 15, thereafter on my Talk page, and at Unblock-en-l were models of civility. I challenge you to find anything I posted anywhere during that ten-day period that displayed a combative attitude. And yet the problem started, and the problem escalated. I think you have confused cause with effect: rather than any combative attitude of mine causing these problems for my family, the problems caused for my family (among other factors) have resulted in an attitude that is described as combative. Dino 22:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply

DeanHinnen is unfamilar with WP and is dishonest in his application of it

1) DeanHinnen has been campaiging to get a particular piece of information into the Peter Roskam article. (Roskam added an amendement to an energy bill) Roskam's involvement was only documented on the Congressman's website, and on thomas.gov which has the full text of every bill. Roskam wasn't even one of the bill's 15 cosponsors. The consenus was that since no one other the Congressman's website documented his participation, it wasn't notable. Hinnen repeatedly added this paragraph into the article despite consensus that it didn't belong. Hinnen then added a new ref to the paragraph, claiming that a Chigago Daily Herald article which he physically had, (it was no longer online) documented Roskam's involvement in this bill. Hinnen was asked several times to quote the relevent text - but refused each and every time - telling me that I should go to a library to read it. The article was found a couple days later, and it did not support Hinnen's claims AT ALL. It didn't even mention the bill. It was about Global Warming. Hinnen was dishonest. Furthermore, when I tried to explain that we rely on RS V secondary sources to judge notability, and since none of the media outlets in the Congressman's district thought that his particpation in the energy bill was notable enough to document - that we shouldn't either. His reply (today) was :"Why are you deferring all decisions about notability to the mainstream news media? Why are they the sole arbiters of what constitutes "notability"? Can't we make decisions like that ourselves?" Here's where Hinnen added the paragraph back in with a BOGUS ref. diff The article that Hinnen claimed documented Roskams energy bill participation. (he thought it wasn't available on line) Global Warming FaAfA (yap) 23:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply

More. I can't even begin to fathom how somone who has spent as much time on Wiki as DeanHinnen has could suggest "Why are you deferring all decisions about notability to the mainstream news media? Why are they the sole arbiters of what constitutes "notability"? Can't we make decisions like that ourselves?" What an idea! That way we could have an article on every high school and middle school in the United States! Actually we could have articles on every thing, person, idea, theory, band, song, neologism, subject etc that exists which has at least 5 or 10 people with computers and an interest in that subject! Why didn't I think of rewriting a fundamental cornerstone of WP like that !? (hits self on forehead!) - FaAfA (yap) 03:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Reply to Tbeatty : Slow down there big fella! Of course thomas has it. Thomas has EVERY bill. I never said it didn't. What I'm talking about is Hinnen adding back the paragraph with a NEW source, the Daily Herald Feb. 8 Global Warming article - which Hinnen claimed documented Roskam's involvement in the energy bill. He asked us to 'take his word' on that and wouldn't post the text. He told me to go to the library. The article he fallaciously used said NOTHING about Roskam's participation in that energy bill. This one. Global Warming - FaAfA (yap) 02:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Daily Herald Feb. 8 Global Warming article - which Hinnen claimed documented Roskam's involvement in the energy bill.
When did I make this claim? I made no such claim. Do you have a diff? Dino 03:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Your action made the claim diff as did your words. I urge the Arbitrators to read the discussion like "Four reliable sources, including the very same RS V daily newspaper..." (Daily Herald) "one paragraph about the Roskam amendment to alternative fuels legislation still doesn't pass muster here. Can you explain that, sir?" - FaAfA (yap) 05:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Your action made the claim ...
The diff you've cited only indicates that the source supports something in that paragraph. It doesn't indicate that the source supports the specific claim that it "documented Roskam's involvement in the energy bill." I am not responsible for your misunderstandings, sir. Dino 15:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply : This is the entirety of the material in the Global Warming article mentioning Roskam : "In terms of emissions, Rep. Peter Roskam of Wheaton said Congress should consider the issue. But he wanted assurances no manufacturing jobs would be lost as a result of any policy changes." That does not support anything in the energy legislation paragraph, and I assume that's why you refused to quote the text. Your actions and your words claimed that this Global Warming article supported the energy legislation paragraph. - FaAfA (yap) 22:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Why do you think it's dishonest when 5 seconds at thomas.loc.gov found it?

Item 1 of 1

NEW SEARCH | HOME | HELP

H.AMDT.8 (A007) Amends: H.R.547 Sponsor: Rep Roskam, Peter J. [IL-6] (offered 2/8/2007) AMENDMENT PURPOSE: An amendment to amend section 6 of the bill to make authorization of appropriations subject to pay as you go provisions.

STATUS:

2/8/2007 12:40pm: Amendment (A007) offered by Mr. Roskam. (consideration: CR H1365-1368; text: CR H1365) 2/8/2007 12:57pm: On agreeing to the Roskam amendment (A007) Agreed to by voice vote. ?? You lack of AGF is getting very tiresome. -- Tbeatty 02:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

His lack of AGF is really making me very weary. I'm sick and tired of it, I have done my absolute best to be civil (given the circumstances) and continue my efforts to improve and balance these articles. I invite anyone to find any fault at all with anything I have done on Wikipedia articles, assuming that I'm acting in good faith. I make mistakes, and I'll be the first to admit that. But I'm not being dishonest. There has also been a simultaneous dispute over the public domain nature of a photograph of Roskam. I have proven to be 100% correct in claiming that it was in the public domain all along, and others were the ones who were mistaken. I notice that FAAFA makes no mention of that. Dino 15:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
You must be very weary and tired then cause I stopped AGF with you on 01/16/07 after we found the TJ Walker article which you claimed "he didn't write" archived on the internet, and we discovered that you were the 'brother' of a permabanned troll who created a least half-a-dozen highly developed sockpuppet-personas who wasted WEEKS of our time and used up all my good faith (in this lifetime AND the next) towards anybody ( of the sock or meat puppet persuasion) named Hinnen. That would include you - and the text I posted yesterday from one of Bryan's sock accounts showed that the dozen+ strong, three generation encompassing family 'tribe' who he admitted made a 'collective' decision to all register on Wiki together was nothing more than a sock/meat puppet army. AGF allowed me to suspend AGF at the time FaAfA (yap) 23:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

User:DeanHinnen and User:BryanFromPalatine

1) Per RFAR/Iasson: "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets". User:DeanHinnen and User:BryanFromPalatine are either one and the same person or may be so treated for the purposes of discussion. BryanFromPalatine states that he was "active as part of the legal team for Free Republic"; DeanHinnen states that he is a member of the legal team of Free Republic; User Bryan on FreeRepublic claims to be a member of the legal team, in fact pretty much the same claim as "Dean" [www.freerepublic.com/~bryan/]. APJ states that the individual involved in the Free Republic suit was named Bryan Dean Hinnen. This may or may not be true. However, we have two accounts, both of whom claim to be or have been members of the legal team of Free Republic, in I think the same case, both of whom edit from the same IP address and both of whom exhibit the same combative style, the same bias, and the same vendetta against FAAFA and BenBurch.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed Guy ( Help!) 10:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Conflict of interest by DeanHinnen

1) DeanHinnen is associated with the administration of the Free Republic website [161].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 23:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

BenBurch

1) BenBurch is a liberal activist who maintains White Rose Society and a blog The Voice From the Whirlwind. He has expressed concern regarding the editing of DeanHinnen [162].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 23:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
And also is part-owner of Head On Radio Network, and Consultant to Nova-M Radio Network, and administrator of WhoreNet, a sexworker's rights mailing list. -- BenBurch 19:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Looking for [WhoreNet] is not recommended. Fred Bauder 22:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Sorry, should have mentioned that. It's a mailing list not a web site. You will find only a couple of mentions to it on Google that are actually mentions of it... The most significant is probably Tracy Quan's Salon.com article about it. [163] -- BenBurch 22:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:

Fairness And Accuracy For All has engaged in discourtesy, personal attacks, and gross behavior

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who edited before October 29, 2006 as NBGPWS ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has engaged in gross behavior [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], and [181].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 01:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:

Let me address those instances one by one. 1) I created said drawing in response to the heated arguments on the ejaculation article talk page, and in response to this specific request " I support replacing the current image with a clinical, encyclopedic drawing. Is a freely licensed one currently available?" Johntex\talk 05:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC) - link but decided against posting it since (as good as it is) I felt it wasn't quite up to snuff for Wikipedia. I even replaced the image with a blank image so others couldn't misuse the image for nefarious or purient purposes. TBeatty reverted this blank image to the penis image, and then asked for {help} to change it back. He obviously had concerns over the image and I believed called it a 'wrondoing' so I thought it important to let him know the history. link link 2) Absurd - Hinnen used Nazi references several times, even alluding 'An Inconvenient Truth' as Nazi propganda, but I can't comment on that? But you get to have a userbox about Stalinesque leftists? LOL! 3) Hinnen was back with the Nazi comparisons, I commented. BFD. 4) Sarcastic humor - nothing more. 5) WP NPA + CIVIL, but he admitted he put this world famous guitarist up for AFD by mistake. This is a legit WP violation however.6) I stopped AGF with Hinnen on 1/16 based on his dishonest actions and claims, and admission that he was part of the Hinnen puppet platoon. ALLOWED and mitigating under AGF up until 2/17. I admit to many NPA, CIVIL etc 'violations' with all the members of the Hinnen sock puppet army, just like numerous other admins would when dealing with CPlot trolls. - FaAfA (yap) 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

You are deep in denial. Fred Bauder 16:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply :(with all due respect) As are you if you a) think your leftist/Stalin userbox is anything other than entirely inappropriate for a senior Admin / Arbitrator b) you think that anyone who compares your comments, rulings, cites in this RFAr vs the same in your fellow conservative MONGO'S RFAr [182] won't see that you are unable or unwilling to leave your political partisanship at the door. (read it again last night) - FaAfA (yap) 19:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't follow this. For a start, I am no conservative, and what does MONGO have to do with this? Fred Bauder 20:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
What's the deal with all the conservative Wikipedians denying their political stripes lately? Did bush tarnish the word conservative so badly that people won't even cop to it anymore? Not a conservative eh? So what are you now ? Card carrying RCP member? Chavezista? Listen Fred, we'll welcome you over to the liberal side of the political spectrum, but we'll have to verify your 'conversion' first. We don't want any faux liberals who are claiming our great mantle just cause bush has sullied the word 'conservative' so badly that it might take a generation before it loses its skunk-like stench! As for MONGO's RFAr and your part - look at the bright side - your saying 'excessive zeal' lives on forever in the Wiki Lexicon - in the Creative Weaselisms section! ;-) - FaAfA (yap) 03:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply : to Tbeatty. Fred Bauers's provocative and belligerent Leftists=Stalin userbox broadcasts his personal views and an offensive ad hominem attack 24/7/365. I only do so when I type. - FaAfA (yap) 04:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply


Comment by others:
Support he added this after your proposal. -- Tbeatty 18:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, I think that's a fair finding. FAAFA is abrasive, opinionated, has a sense of humour which is often not appreciated, and lacks the self-control to keep these issues out of article space. Some kind of parole is undoubtedly merited. Guy ( Help!) 14:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I think the exchange above typifies what it is like trying to achieve consensus about articles with this editor as it always degrades into personal views and ad hominem comments. No one really cares whether FAAFA or anyone else is a 'Chavezista' or RCP member or Neocon or whatever. Just as long as he follows the rules of civility which he doesn't seem to grasp. -- Tbeatty 03:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Couldn't agree more. Guy ( Help!) 14:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I just wish he would decide that he can do more good with research than with derision. And you know, you can let somebody know you think they are a contemptible bozo in a quite civil way, though it is true that sometimes such people are too stupid or monomaniacal to realize you have called them a bozo, everybody else gets it, and that makes it even MORE funny. -- BenBurch 15:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

DeanHinnen is not a sockpuppet

1) DeanHinnen is not a sockpuppet.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. I e-mailed this to Newyorkbrad and he has instructed me to add this proposal, with the statement that any admin with a question about this can contact Newyorkbrad. Dino 19:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose - Flies in the face of everything we have learned about him during this process. -- BenBurch 19:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Confirming that I authorized Dino to add the proposal to this page (he had previously promised not to edit this page further without checking). No comment on the merits. Newyorkbrad 19:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose. See statements above. Same disruption, same claims to be a member of the legal team, same IP address. Sockpuppet or meatpuppet? Irrelevant, per previous ArbCom rulings. Guy ( Help!) 23:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Wait, don't you mean irrelevant, as opposed to relevant? Picaroon 00:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose. This is not the prevailing opinion. Picaroon 00:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Free Republic activism

1) [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1549132/posts "Action Alert: Freep Wikipedia" Dec 30 2005], [www.freerepublic.com/~bryan/ Info on Bryan, Free Republic], [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795382/posts post by Bryan about Wikipedia] [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795382/posts?q=1&&page=1 first 50 responses], [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795382/posts?q=1&&page=51 51-100], [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795382/posts?q=1&&page=101 101-150], [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795382/posts?q=1&&page=151 151-]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Note Fred Bauder 05:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Editing history of Free Republic

1) Free Republic as of August 12, 2006. At this stage the article contained a great deal of material apparently added by users familiar with the site, see editing by Lawyer2b ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a skillful editor with a conservative point of view who removes most information in the section "Allegations Of extremism and bigotry" on the basis that it is unsourced: [183], [184], [185], [186], [187]. [188]. Following removal of a number of unsourced observations JamesMLane ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adds a reasonable source [189]. Tbeatty ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removes original research [190]. A close question "freeptard defined", "freeptard" removed by RWR8189 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Original research by Professor Ninja ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), removal by RWR8189. A contentious issue, removed as violation of BLP! by Tbeatty. External links removed by JBKramer ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). "Writing for the enemy" by BenBurch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [191].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Looking into this Fred Bauder 15:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
It is my understanding that that "members of free republic" are living persons and as such are covered by BLP policies requiring rigid sourcing by reliable third party sources when negative information is being presented about them. Is that not accurate? -- Tbeatty 21:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, BLP applies to mention of people in other articles even when they are not the main subject. To me, a lot of this amounts to saying "Free Republic is bad because some of its members are bad" which, if you actually came out and said it, would be an obvious soapbox and guilt by association problem. Cloaking it in careful language does not address the underlying problem. Thatcher131 21:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
If the actions of any group's members are so notable that the MSM writes about them, it's inclusionable. The article on DU has documentation of the DU nut who suggested that the Indonesian Tsunami might have been a secret US Gov weapon, and mean-spirited comments about Laura Ingrahm (who had breast cancer) and Reagan after his death - BECAUSE the press documented them.. I know of NO article on any political group that does not have criticism, and criticism of individual members if they did something picked up by the MSM. I even added the qualifiers "handful' and 'small minority' of members making death threats. - FaAfA (yap) 22:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree with Thatcher up to a point: it is fair to say that FR is bad if some of its members are bad and they use FR to say bad things and FR does nothing about it, which is the point at issue. Guy ( Help!) 14:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The issue is always who says it's bad. There certainly is legitimate criticism of Free Republic and I'd postulate that none of it is derived from the site itself. It must be a reliable third party source. Inferring it's bad through guilt by association is not acceptable. Inferring it's bad by highlighting a post at a message board appears bad is not acceptable. Concluding it's bad because of the action or inaction of the board operator is simply not a valid measure. Your standard of "bad" is irrelevant because it should never come to that. Wikipedia should not be used as a soapbox to highlight "bad" posts or quotes or other trivialities in order to advance a point of view. -- Tbeatty 14:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Original research

1) Free Republic has contained material which has no other source than posts on Free Republic:

Free Republic is often accused of being extremist and far-right. Even popular conservative talk show host Sean Hannity has described the site as "fringe". [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1344622/posts]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Note Fred Bauder 17:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
But is citing a message board posting in an article about that message board always OR? Even if it is used to establish things like the site's rules? Or mission statement? I think if we held strictly to that standard, we would have to purge most of the web sites currently covered. And if we are going to do that, let's do that across the board. and treat web site article about artichokes.com the same as those about hot button issues. This is a serious question on my part. Honestly I think that we should just make a rule that all web site articles should redirect to the open directory project entry, and be quit of this sort of foolishness. -- BenBurch 18:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Use of links to information which is not controversial such as their guidelines should be Ok. Analysis of whether they follow those guidelines would need to be from a third party, see this righteous edit. Fred Bauder 20:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Read the archives - I'll find the links. Bryan was arguing FOR inclusion of JimRob's statements about homosexuality, evolution, etc. This was also discussed at length during mediation - If JimRob's views speak for Free Republic as a whole or not. What's ironic is that several people involved in this RFAr are doing EXACTLY what they accuse Ben and I of doing - cherry-picking to portray something or somone as negatively as possible. (in this case Ben and my efforts on the article) Why don't you get more input from Jossi who directed the mediation - ask him to weigh in on whether or not Ben and I were looking for positive material to put in the article, and that's EXACTLY what I did, to help balance out any criticism. link - FaAfA (yap) 21:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
We have good reason to focus on controversial articles. Wikipedia:Verifiability is not an afterthought; it is fundamental policy, as is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a battleground for political struggle. What we need is a sober, conservatively written summary of verifiable information from reliable sources. What, for example, do political scientists have to say about Free Republic? Fred Bauder 20:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Please read archive 3 and archive 4 we were all working with Admin Jossi to determine what was OR, and what wasn't. You might also note that during this time frame, RWR1989 added content to the Democratic Underground article regarding them being contacted by the Secret Service, and this info was ONLY published on DU at the time, by the head moderator/ owner. The WP justification was 'DU is an expert on DU'- FaAfA (yap) 21:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
How good is the sourcing for Democratic Underground (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? We could apply the same remedy to it as I propose for Free Republic, article probation. Fred Bauder 01:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Please see this DU article discussion re the secret service where several editors active on the FR article were insisting that referencing the site owners comments about the secret service was NOT OR cause he's a RS on DU. Secret Service debate I actually gave up rather than fight them ! - FaAfA (yap) 02:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Essentially it is a use of anecdotal evidence to draw an inappropriate conclusion, original research. Almost all the references in the criticism section of Democratic Underground article serve that function. Publication of an anecdote in the Wall Street Journal does not change its essential nature. Fred Bauder 05:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

And look how the FR supporters titled that section : 'Death threats against government officials' diff Did they include the part of the DU policy that warns "In the case of the president, do not even post jokes, as the Secret Service is not known for its sense of humor."? Of course not! It MIGHT have been something as 'mild' as an highly inappropriate joke. If you saw Fahrenheit 9/11 you saw the part where they hauled in a 70+ year old man, for vehemently cussing bush out in a gym. The DU section is OR, speculation, and negative light. - FaAfA (yap) 07:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Fair statement. Guy ( Help!) 14:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

BryanFromPalatine

1) An examination of the editing of BryanFromPalatine ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shows personal attacks and vandalism (This is rather subtle, the change of link was to a now deleted attack page directed at the user, but perhaps it was just a mistake). He finds an acorn.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Just getting started Fred Bauder 20:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Community ban of User:BryanFromPalatine endorsed

1) User:BryanFromPalatine was banned by the community for tendentious editing, personal attacks, block evasion and disruption. This ban is endorsed by ArbCom.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
If you're going to seek endorsement by ArbCom at this time, BFP should be allowed to participate in his own defense. This endorsement should not be considered or given at this time because it will unnecessarily complicate an already complex proceeding. BFP is already the subject of an indefinite block. If he ever wants to come back, he can seek to be unblocked through the usual channels. Dino 20:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary. It's a review of the process, not the ban itself. Guy ( Help!) 22:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You wrote it this way: "This BAN is endorsed by ArbCom." Therefore it's a review of the ban. Dino 23:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
No, it's an endorsement of the ban, which means a review of the process. Please stop splashing bold red text everywhere. Guy ( Help!) 21:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I think there was a sale on red electrons recently at Radio Shack -- BenBurch 05:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy ( Help!) 20:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Picaroon 20:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Clerk note:
User:BryanFromPalatine has been notified of the arbitration. He may submit evidence by e-mail to an active arbitrator or arbitration clerk, who will post it or e-mail it to all arbitrators via the ArbCom mailing list. Newyorkbrad 18:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
A notice on his Talk page isn't going to do it. He hasn't even looked at Wikipedia in about three weeks. I'll contact him, but I doubt that he'll be interested. Dino 18:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

User:Fairness And Accuracy For All/ User:NBGPWS is a banned from political articles

Fairness And Accuracy For All ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)/ NBGPWS ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a banned from political articles, talkpages, and other Wikipedia venues such as AfD, XfD's etc. This includes biographical articles of political figures such as politicians and political activists.


Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I disagree with this. Perhaps a ban for a period of a couple of months from the Free Republic article, and a requirement that he not belittle other editors no matter how much they may appear to deserve it. Mock politeness, even obvious mock politeness, can still be used to get a message across in a more civil manner, and I know he can rise to that occasion. He is a valuable editor of political articles. -- BenBurch 04:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Disagree, Tbeatty has been involved in warring with FAAFA, so there really is no surprise that they would seek to remove the alternate POV. Further as noted below, "political" is horribly broad. -- Nuclear Zer0 17:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed Tbeatty 02:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Political articles is a braod terminology as even many feel the artilces related to 9/11 are political and FAAFA/NBGPWS has been active there as well.-- MONGO 05:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Parole would be better. I'd endorse that no problem. Guy ( Help!) 12:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Fairness And Accuracy For All ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)/ NBGPWS ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia indefinitely

Fairness And Accuracy For All ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)/ NBGPWS ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned from contributing to Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I disagree with this, I do not feel what FAAFA has done warrants a permanent sitewide ban. Prodego talk 03:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
What Prodego said; ditto. -- BenBurch 05:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This man's User Talk pages and their archives, in his current guise and his previous guise as NBGPWS, are wallpapered with warnings about his incivility and edit warring. He will never stop completely. He will tone it down for a while until he thinks he can get away with it again. A permanent ban is the only effective solution. If you get rid of me, he will just pick a new victim and BB will be right there with him using gang tactics.
This. Must. Stop. Forever. Dino 16:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed Tbeatty 01:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
No thanks. I find him tiresome and vexatious, but despite numerous discussions on the admin noticeboards over the months I don't see an indefinite ban as justified. Guy ( Help!) 15:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Unjustified. He may be a bit too sharp at times, but I has shown he is capable to edit collaboratively (at least during the informal mediation). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Disagreed. While not the best behavior, attempting to use Arbcom to remove those with differing political opinions is overboard. Anyway arguing on one article normally warrants an article band or probation, surely not a sitewide ban. -- Nuclear Zer0 17:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
He's been Wikistalking me from article to article, starting a content dispute everywhere I go. That merits a sitewide ban, gentlemen. See WP:STALK. Dino 15:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comprehensive remedy for the conduct of User:DeanHinnen

1) Whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen to be banned from editing Wikipedia (main article space) for a period of three months, following which he or she is on probation to be civil in all of his or her dealings, to obey the rule of WP:1RR, to not post on the talk pages of either User:BenBurch or User:Fairness And Accuracy For All, and to make no reference whatsoever to legal consequences of editing decisions for life. Where he or she has valid concerns in that sphere, an ArbCom admin shall be appointed a "Special Master" for purposes of hearing his or her concerns and acting upon them if in the Special Master's sole judgement there is cause to act for the protection of Wikipedia. He or she shall also have this probation revoked should he or she use a sock puppet for any purpose whatsoever. -- BenBurch 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. -- BenBurch 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
WP:1RR is not a "rule", nor is it a policy or even a guideline. It is an essay. -- rogerd 17:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
It is, however, a valid sanction proposed in ArbCom cases. Guy ( Help!) 19:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Just the sense in which I meant this. I should note that I now think this proposal is insufficient. -- BenBurch 15:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Comprehensive remedy for the conduct of User:Fairness And Accuracy For All

1) User:Fairness And Accuracy For All to be banned from editing Free Republic or its talk page for a period of three months, following which he is on probation to be civil in all of his dealings, to not post on the talk page of whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen, and to obey the rule of WP:2RR for a period of one year.-- BenBurch 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. -- BenBurch 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This man's User Talk pages and their archives, in his current guise and his previous guise as NBGPWS, are wallpapered with warnings about his incivility and edit warring. He will never stop completely. He will tone it down for a while until he thinks he can get away with it again. A permanent ban is the only effective solution. If you get rid of me, he will just pick a new victim and BB will be right there with him using gang tactics.
This. Must. Stop. Forever. Dino 16:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
I disagree. It should be stiffer than that. He has many blocks and a previous RfC on his bahavior. Even his behavior at this arbitration are atrocious. -- Tbeatty 05:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Addressed by prohibition to be civil. After a year of editing with civility, he will have made a habit of it (as will I.) -- BenBurch 05:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Civility is a principle that he has already been warned about. It is expected of editors, not a punishment. The next escalation is block or ban or other sanction. Have him demonstrate his civility in an area of wikipedia that is less contentious than political articles for 1 year. -- Tbeatty 05:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I could agree with three months off Political articles. A year is far, far too long. -- BenBurch 05:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
No. An article ban might be justified, standard civility parole would be unproblematic, but we have to have a really good reason for preventing people from even commenting on a talk page, for example to point out errors of fact. Guy ( Help!) 15:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
So amended. -- BenBurch 16:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comprehensive remedy for the conduct of User:BenBurch

1) User:BenBurch to be banned from editing Free Republic or its talk page for a period of three months, following which he is on probation to be civil in all of his dealings, to not post on the talk page of whomever is using the account User:DeanHinnen, and to obey the rule of WP:2RR for a period of one year.-- BenBurch 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Amended as per discussion above. -- BenBurch 16:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. -- BenBurch 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This man's User Talk page and its carefully concealed archives are wallpapered with warnings about his incivility and edit warring. He will never stop completely. He will tone it down for a while until he thinks he can get away with it again. A permanent ban is the only effective solution. If you get rid of me, he will just pick a new victim and FAAFA will be right there with him using gang tactics.
This. Must. Stop. Forever. Dino 16:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
How the hell could I conceal, carefully or otherwise, the edit history of my user talk page? Sorry, my friend, but you are grasping at straws here. And;
Can. You. Sound. More. Like. William. Shatner. Please? -- BenBurch 19:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
How the hell could I conceal, carefully or otherwise, the edit history of my user talk page?
That's easy. You create two pages of archives and then, when you realize they support you in the same way a hangman's rope supports a condemned criminal, you delete the links to them. This forces others to invest a lot of effort into either finding the pages or reconstructing them.
Can. You. Sound. More. Like. William. Shatner. Please?
Yes, there's some more of that relentless mockery that you and your friend can't live without. No, I'm not taking the bait. Stop shoving it into my face. Dino 18:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Relentless mockery? Sheesh. Tough room. You appear to construe every minor attempt at having a sense of humor about this as some sort of attack. Which I think is MUCH of the problem most of us have with you. -- BenBurch 16:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I've had a chance to review the relentless mockery of my brother by you and your friend. You gleefully baited him into self-destruction. After that, it would be foolish to believe for a moment that I'd ever find any humor in anything the two of you have to say. The moment I started using words like "mockery," "ridicule" and "baiting" to describe what you are trying to pass off as humor, you should have understood the message loud and clear: You're not funny. But you still persist. Dino 20:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Dino, drop the stick and step away from the horse. Of the three of you (four if you count Bryan), BenBurch is, I think, the only one whose edit history holds up to any kind of scrutiny, and he's also the most ready to accept critique, compromise and resolution. He is also the only one who shows much capacity for self-criticism. Guy ( Help!) 12:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
I'm impressed by Ben's attempts to acknowledge and, in fact, make up, for his past mistakes - could you try doing the same, Dean? However, I'm just not liking the wording of this proposal, and can't put my finger on why. Picaroon 00:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. Ben used poor judgment is hitching his star to Faafa and focusing WAY to much attention to the disruptive antics of Dean (to the point of vendetta), but I feel that Bens behavior may actually have been in earnest to improve the project despite the fact that things got out of control. Things got out of control but I DO detect sincerity from Ben and I doubt things will ever rise again to this level. Civility probation and 2RR are certainly sufficient. Dman727 07:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply

User:Fairness And Accuracy For All/ User:NBGPWS is banned from Wikipedia

1) User:Fairness And Accuracy For All/ User:NBGPWS is banned from Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. This man has been here for a long time and he just keeps getting warnings that he ignores and 24-hour blocks that he waits out. A permanent solution is the only solution. Dino 16:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Oppose. Parole should be sufficient. Guy ( Help!) 14:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
See my comments above regarding Tbeatty's virtually identical proposal, sir. Dino 15:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply

User:BenBurch is banned from Wikipedia

1) User:BenBurch is banned from Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. This man has been here for a long time and he just keeps getting warnings that he ignores and 24-hour blocks that he waits out. A permanent solution is the only solution. Dino 16:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I see you favor only final solutions. It is good for you that nobody on "my" side of this process has proposed the same against you. Or do you seek to motivate such a proposal? In any case I have said that I don't care if I am blocked or banned. Dealing with you has made this project zero fun for me, and I suspect for others as well. I won't spend my time on an activity that I no longer find rewarding. I am only here because several editors and administrators asked me nicely to rescind my retirement from Wikipedia and see this process though. In any case, I do expect that if you continue to be combative, uncivil, and vexatious here in this proceeding, that you will wind up being locked out of editing no matter what I propose. I can only wonder at why you choose to be in this venue with anything less than a fully cooperative, civil, and apologetic frame of mind. -- BenBurch 16:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I've repeatedly stated that I accept responsibility and apologized for my part in this. [192] [193] But I have been called a "paragon of civility" and despite the damage I've been relentlessly baited into doing to that reputation, I hope that I can repair it after you and FAAFA are gone. Your history here is long and turbulent. His is just about as long, and even more turbulent. I've been here exactly one month and (with the exception of the first extremely civil hour or two) I spent the first ten days permablocked, and developing my reputation as a paragon of civility at Unblock-en-l. For all practical purposes, I've been here three weeks. As a newbie, I hope that I can be given another chance.
But as veteran Wikipedia POV warriors, a final solution for you and your friend appears to be the only solution. If I saw any sign that a less draconian remedy would work, I would certainly be open to the idea. But there is no such sign. Dino 17:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You were called a paragon of civility by members of en-unblock-l one of whom later wrote the following about you;
So, what happened to your promise to en-unblock-l, eh? -- BenBurch 18:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Here's what happened to my promise, Ben: "I can think of no other way to force him to get the attention of enough admins to finally get one of them to deal with him." [194] You've admitted that you and your friend engaged in a campaign of baiting and badgering, for the purpose of baiting me into incivility. It's a signed confession, sir. And with all the aggravating circumstances — your lengthy and turbulent past histories at Protest Warrior and elsewhere, your previous gleeful baiting campaign against BFP, your Wikistalking, your gang tactics and your use of abysmally bad sourcing to smear conservative organizations and politicians, in violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight — all indications point to the final solution I've proposed.
It's unfortunate. Both of you are clearly very bright. You could have been real assets to this project. But in my opinion, you have consistently chosen to use these gifts to pursue a political agenda and to bait anyone who gets in your way into self-destruction. The project will be much better off without you. Your gifts and the way you employ them may be more useful at Dkosopedia, since they produce the same high-RPM left-wing spin that you can't seem to live without. In fact, I'd be surprised if you aren't already contributing there on a regular basis. Dino 14:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
If they are very bright then you are very foolish. Nobody forced you to rise to the bait. Especially, noboidy forced you to start from a position of having already risen to the bait. Guy ( Help!) 12:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Grossly excessive. Of the three main parties, BenBurch is the only one I'd give a rat's ass about losing fomr the project. Guy ( Help!) 12:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
BenBurch openly acknowledged that he engaged in Wikistalking for the purpose of baiting me into a confrontation. Examples of previous Wikistalking remedies provided by ArbCom, as described in WP:STALK, indicate that a permanent ban isn't even slightly excessive, sir. Dino 20:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
And you openly acknowledge conflict of interest editing, tendentious editing, original research. The difference is, BenBurch shows signs of contrition. You have shown no signs of anythign other than arrogance, aggression and hubris. Guy ( Help!) 23:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You continue to misrepresent and distort the evidence, sir. I've voluntarily stopped editing Free Republic. I edited that article once on January 15 when Carolyn Doran's removal of libelous material was reverted, and I haven't edited that article since; while BenBurch and FAAFA, despite their obvious COI problems, continued to edit the article and defend poorly sourced negative information that they added to the article. Also, I've repeatedly stated that I accept responsibility and apologized for my part in this, sir. [195] [196] These two diffs were posted in this section eight days ago, but you continue to ignore them and claim that I "show no signs of anything other than arrogance, aggression and hubris." Dino 00:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
No, Dino, I continue to disagree with you on interpretation of the evidence (and from the basis of a lot more experience of Wikipedia). The fact that you feel the need to portray this in terms like "misrepresent" and "distort the evidence" is unquestionably a large part of the problem, since it is not only incivil, it actively hampers any attempt to resolve the dispute. Conflict of interest here is clearly present in your case. BenBurch and FAAFA disagree with Free Republic's politics, that does not constitute a conflict of interest. Guy ( Help!) 17:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
No, Dino, I continue to disagree with you on interpretation of the evidence (and from the basis of a lot more experience of Wikipedia).
I've been interpreting evidence, and watching opponents distort, destroy and conceal it, for nearly 30 years on matters of much greater gravity, sir. And please don't try to claim any special expertise. Statements were made, and they were recorded. These are identical to any other recorded statement, and susceptible to the same analysis I have used throughout my career. Try to remember what I do for a living, when I'm not here trying to correct for the relentless left-wing spin. Dino 14:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
And that is the core of our problem with you. You seem to think this is one of those other matters you get paid to litigate. You have obsessively edited this page for over a week now. I don't think you have spent five minutes away from editing this thing in that time. God only knows what your employer thinks you are doing with your time! And worse you are in a system that is 90 degrees away from the system you are used to, but are still dealing with matters as though there were a judge, rules of evidence, and an expectation that outcomes come from evidence that does not really exists here. Here your ATTITUDE matters a hell of a lot more than the letter of the law or what you did over a year ago. Your attitude SUCKS. I'd love to have you here as an editor (only one copy of you though) if you could just understand that we are not litigating patents here, we are writing an encyclopedia. -- BenBurch 15:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Very excessive. While Ben's hands are hardly clean in this matter, it seems that it was the misbehavior of Dean and Faafa that brought things beyond the point of reason and Ben "came along for the ride". Among the three, Ben is the only one who has shown the ability to take corrective action based up constructive critisism. If it were not for Dean/Faafa unrepentent escalation of this issue, any concerns of Bens behavior would have been long dealt with via the normal admin process's. Dman727 07:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Along with Guy, I find BenBurch to be the most nearly reasonable of the three main parties. He might be reformable and remedies can be fashioned in a way that would lead to sitebanning if that hope proves to be misplaced. Durova Charge! 20:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

User:Fairness And Accuracy For All/ User:NBGPWS is placed on civility parole indefinitely

1) User:Fairness And Accuracy For All is placed on civility parole indefinitely. Blocks to be administered by any administrator not involved in a content dispute with him.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed.-- MONGO 06:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Sounds good to me - maybe with the option of review after a year of good behavior? Picaroon 20:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:CIVIL is policy, so since there has already been repeated violations of this and repeated blocks, some people might see that as sufficient to simply ban him indefinitely. The proposal I posted is what I think is more than fair. He could always ask for clarification at anytime in the future.-- MONGO 06:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Works for me. One year or indefinite, not really bothered which. Guy ( Help!) 09:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. All involved users need to be put on parole for NPA and breaches of WP:CIVIL ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support -- rogerd 13:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply

User:Fairness And Accuracy For All/ User:NBGPWS is banned from editing political articles for 6 months

1) User:Fairness And Accuracy For All is banned from editing political articles for 6 months. This includes talk pages of political articles.

or

1a) User:Fairness And Accuracy For All is placed on parole for 6 months and may be banned from any article or Talk page he disrupts, such bans to be discussed at the community notieceboard.

or

1b) User:Fairness And Accuracy For All/ User:NBGPWS is banned from editing political articles for 6 months excluding talk pages where he may raise issues in a civil manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed.-- MONGO 06:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't like this, despite my distaste for FAAFA's style, because it prevents him notifying problems on Talk. I'd say a topical ban may be justified but it could be along the lines of "may be banned from any article he disrupts", so if he is able to engage in civil discourse we don't need to take action. I therefore propose 1a instead. Guy ( Help!) 12:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I proposed 1b to adress the talk page concern vs. parole. Civility is already expected behavior. Civility has already been a problem. I block or ban for a period of time is called for as the next step. -- Tbeatty 02:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
1a or 1b would be acceptable to me (if that matters). The reason for suggesting 1a is that the definition of a political article is somewhat wide, and if he does not disrupt an article there is no particular reason he shouldn't edit it (minor fact checking, adding citations, that kind of thing). I'm strongly in favour of a zero-tolerance approach on disruption for FAAFA going forward. I don't see him as irredeemable but his behaviour has, in my view, been an issue for a long time. This is better than a blanket ban which might then lead to immediate problems of interpretation. A liberal interpretation of disruption can certainly be applied. Guy ( Help!) 09:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I too think option 1 goes too far. 1b would be good, 1a is also fine. (My view of FAAFA has changed in the last day or two.) CWC (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support -- rogerd 13:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply

User:DeanHinnen is placed on 1RR parole for six months

1) User:DeanHinnen is placed on 1RR parole for six months. He may be blocked by any administrator not involved in a content dispute with him if he violates 1RR for the six months after the closing of this proceeding.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Endorsed -- BenBurch 20:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed.-- MONGO 06:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
For clarification: you mean one revert per day, right? Picaroon 20:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, 1RR is one revert...so an edit and one revert back to that edit is 1RR...two reverts back to an edit is 2RR and would be a violation. This wouldn't mean a revert of obvious vandalism of course.-- MONGO 06:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Standard revert parole, reasonably uncontroversial. Guy ( Help!) 12:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes. 1RR parole is warranted for all parties in this case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

User:DeanHinnen may not make legal threats either directly or implied

1) User:DeanHinnen may not make legal threats either directly or implied. Further legal threats by DeanHinnen may result in an indefinite block.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Endorse -- BenBurch 20:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed.-- MONGO 06:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. This will go a long way in heading off further talk page confrontations. Picaroon 20:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Interpretation should be liberal, as per the usual wording. Dean's judgement about how threatening his words are is clearly not in line with community norms, we need to be explicit that it is not his call whether or not a statementis an implied threat, implied threats should be withdrawn immediately and without demur. Guy ( Help!) 12:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Durova Charge! 02:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

NOTE: "Dean Hinnen" made a legal threat in an e-mail to American Politics Journal. His e-mail -- and our reply -- can be read here. Apj-us-nyc 19:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Endorse -- rogerd 13:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Article probation

1) The article Free Republic (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is placed on article probation indefinitely, starting at the close of this arbitration case.

Free Republic placed on article probation

Free Republic (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is placed on article probation. It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Accepted with alternative language. Fred Bauder 18:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
I gladly agree to this - and withdraw from the article entirely if the article includes sourced criticism at time of probation - and Admins agree to keep a close eye on it . - FAAFA 03:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. This'll make it much easier for Durova, Jossi, Jzg, Prodego, myself, and any other admins intent on keeping the peace to actually keep the peace. Committee members, may, of course, make a motion to change the length of time as they see fit after the close of the case, if this remedy and its current length of time is endorsed; alternately, anyone can make suggestions about the proposed duration of probation right here and now. Picaroon 20:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This is certainly an attractive proposal. Guy ( Help!) 12:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. Although I don't see why it needs to be longer than one year. Article probation is certainly fitting. 02:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)—the preceding comment is by Durova ( talk • contribs)

1RR and civility probation

Fairness And Accuracy For All ( talk · contribs)/ NBGPWS ( talk · contribs), DeanHinnen ( talk · contribs), BryanFromPalatine ( talk · contribs), and BenBurch ( talk · contribs), are placed on 1RR and civility probation indefinitely for all political-related articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. Couldn't possibly be harmful, and will most likely help a lot. Picaroon 23:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. -- Tbeatty 06:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

User:DeanHinnen banned from Wikipedia

1) User:DeanHinnen and any future sock puppet that may reasonably associated with him to be blocked from editing Wikipedia except for his own user talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed - The threats against APJ have been the last straw for me. And just look at how he has comported himself with others on other articles in the last week or so. Ban me too if you have to, but he has to go. -- BenBurch 18:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply to TBeatty: APJ is where the Death Threats article that Dino claimed was plagiarized and/or didn't exist was published. Dino directed one of his 'signature' legal threats at them yesterday (?). They didn't seem to take as kindly to that as Wiki seems to, nor did they seem to appreciate Dino's repeated claims that APJ had slandered and libeled Free Republic. There's a whole article on 'Dino's' actions there! (link coming) Good reading! (yeah Hinnen - links are TOUGH - HTML too - especially for people who work for an ONLINE ONLY publication ! LOL ) - FaAfA (yap) 01:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
What does APJ have to do with Wikipedia? -- Tbeatty 19:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I was about to ask the same question. NLT protects Wikipedia and its members, not anyone else. I also find it amazing that a "new member" found his way to the Evidence and Workshop pages and knew how to merge a link into his text in his first six edits. The efforts by the left to sway the judgment of this Committee are really getting desperate. Dino 19:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Bry... er, Dino wrote: "I also find it amazing that a 'new member' found his way to the Evidence and Workshop pages and knew how to merge a link into his text in his first six edits."
Golly, Bry... er, Dino, I find it amazing that you haven't figured out that someone with over a decade's experience mastering HTML, PHP, Perl, CSS and, more recently, Ruby (not to mention many more) can pick up on the nuances of posting to Wikipedia after "click[ing] on Editing Help" and reading the instructions. Linking to the relevant pages was a lead-pipe cinch with one simple keyword search on A9 ('cause Google is, you know, so last Thursday). Now what was that I was saying about " Occam's Razor," Br... er, Dino? -- Apj-us-nyc 16:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose - I am not convinced he is a sockpuppet, and DeanHinnen's conduct doesn't warrant this sanction -- rogerd 13:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose - I am not convinced he is a sockpuppet either, his tactics may be questionable but I see most of it as being brought on by constant baiting by the other two. Excessive punishment, too quickly agreed on by the obvious clan members who oppose him. Mobile 01 Talk 00:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply

DeanHinnen

1) DeanHinnen is banned indefinitely from editing Free Republic and associated articles. He may comment on the talk pages of the articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Not sure if comments on talk pages are going to work. Fred Bauder 22:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
It's been his style of commenting, which includes veiled legal threats and a few personal attacks, that is his most disruptive trait. Second are the various things (RFC's, RFCU's, SSP's, and AN/I complaints) he's filed against FAAFA and BenBurch, and last are his occasional article edits. I'd say banning him from Talk:Free Republic would be the most helpful thing short of banning him outright. Picaroon 22:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I have ceased believing that he is separate from Bryan. As such, he is already banned, and the ban should be enforced. Note that although Bryan has been banned for some time, he has continually returned as a sockpuppet - if Dean is not a sockpuppet he is clearly a meatpuppet. Give him the bum's rush, I say. Neither he nor FAAFA would be any loss, both have caused far more dissent than can be justified by the merits of their contributions. Also, this fails to address the issue of Dean's tendentious editing of other subjects. Guy ( Help!) 16:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
  • Oppose as insufficient per JzG. His most recent conduct shows conclusively that he ought not be editing anything here anywhere. -- BenBurch 15:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Insufficient. Hinnen is a ban-evading sock or meatpuppet. Indefinite bock per existing ban, please. Guy ( Help!) 14:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Fairness And Accuracy For All banned

1) Fairness And Accuracy For All is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 01:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Oppose - Really excessive. -- BenBurch 17:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
In the case of User:RPJ, who had spent over a year attacking other users in a one-sided barrage of personal abuse and inserting repeated blatant NPOV violations into articles against an otherwise unanimous consensus, the ArbCom banned him for one year. While FAAFA's conduct has been far from exempliary, his offenses don't come near the level of RPJ's abuse, and to mete out the same level of punishment seems terribly excessive. Additionally, this has hardly been a one-sided conflict. Abuse has been dealt out from all sides, so the punishment should be dealt out appropriately, not to one player in this conflict. I suggest parole, mentorship, or the banning from particular articles, but a lengthy, blanket ban like this is too much. Gamaliel 21:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This will most likely be the "middle" remedy. It looks to me like an indefinite ban for BFP and/or Dean. This 1 year ban for FAAFA. And lesser or no action against BenBurch. As such I think it is fair. FAAFA has disrupted numerous articles and attacked numerous editors and been the subject of numerous administrative actions. Far more extensive than RPJ but he has offset them with more valuable contributions than RPJ which is why the community has not banned him. Of the three persons involved in this ArbCom, FAAFA has the longest history of disruption. It would be grossly disproportionate to treat FAAFA the same as BenBurch. Likewise it would just as disproportionate to treat Dean/Bryan significantly different from FAAFA. -- Tbeatty 00:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I would disagree with that assessment. This ArbCom case is degenerating into a free for all political dispute in which people are trying to get their opponents banned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
TBeatty wants to see me gone as I am 'on' to his intentional misuse of BLP, misconduct so egregious that Jimbo Wales personally commented on it, and a practice that he is still resorting to on a regular basis. I told him that I would address this at some point. Look here where he deleted whole swathes of talk page comments, which could have been edited for 'tone', nothing more. Tbaetty's wholesale deletions Yesterday! Did he leave a 'placeholder' as WP indicates that editors should when they delete or change comments? Of course not. If Tbeatty reads something he doesn't like, he often just deletes it, and claims BLP. He created a bogus Jim Robinson (Free Republic) page and redirected it to Free Republic page during heated arguments over that article and whether or not Jim Robinson was being defamed - a page whose only use would be as a ploy to apply BLP to the whole article - something he tried unsuccesfully on the Protest Warrior article. This calculated misuse of BLP by Tbeatty is much more serious an issue than my big mouth - and I didn't see these same editors complaining about MONGO's big mouth in his and Seabchan's RFAr, but defending it. Don't be fooled by some who claim this 'isn't about poltics'. It's all about politics - and they don't like mine. - FaAfA (yap) 01:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The problem Tbeatty, is that you intentionally and selectively apply or ignore BLP for purely partisan political purposes. Like when you defamed Clinton as responsible for numerous political murders, and when you stated that 9/11 Prof Steven Jones got fired for 'lying' and Jimbo himself excoriated you, writing that people who do things like you did : "have no business editing wikipedia at all." and "The first comment was bad enough. But to come up with a "source" which does not back up the claim *at all*, and to continue to make the claim, is just so far beyond unacceptable..." Jimbo Wales 09:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC) blocked for BLP - FaAfA (yap) 03:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I feel that faafas/NBGPWS long term disruptive and truly unapolegetic behavior needs to be dealt with, and a ban is certainly appropriate. A year may be on the long side though... I think that 3 to 6 months is more appropriate. A 3 to 6 month wiki-break would be more than enough time for faafa to reflect on his behavior and if he returns, take actions to correct it. Anything less and Faafa/NBGPWS will simply offer yet another unsincere appology and then return right away to the behavior which brought him/her here. In any event, the disruptive actions of Ben, Dean and Faafaa are hardly equal. Dean being by far the most serious disrupter and Ben being least..which leaves faafa square in the middle of severity of misconduct. The consequences rendered should be in porportion to the misbehavior and to treat all 3 equally wouldnt be fair to anyone. Dman727 02:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • New comments: I encourage the Arbitrators to look at Dman's own contributions and interpetation of WP, OR, and negative light on the DU 'Secret Service' issue >>link<< where he intentionally exagerated a 'possible' threat that was not even stated to be against bush (maybe cheney?) and might even have been a 'joke' - writing things like "But frankly I do think that death threats against the president ARE notable when they are made on a forum founded on the [hate] of Bush and [hate] of Bush is a common requirement for continuing membership. " ( he refactored 'hate' to 'love' after I complained about his defamation ! ) Then they basically DROVE me off the talk page with their 'gang tactics', insistant misinterperation of WP and OR. I'm no angel - but WHO was correct about OR and self-published sources - according to Fred's comments about posts from FR being OR? - FaAfA (yap) 08:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I interpeted the secret service/DU issue back in December as I saw it using [ [197]]. If that interpetation (or any of my interpetations about anything) are wrong, then I trust the wiki community will set things straight (and they usually do quite quickly :) Dman727 09:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I am MONGO's "big mouth"...I guess. I suggested above that FAAFA be placed on civility parole and on probation from political articles. Generally, there isn't much liklihood that FAAFA and I will agree on anything but as far as it goes with our interrelationships, I have no idea why I am accused here now by him of having a big mouth and yet have to eat the "cookie" FAAFA recently presented me with, though I know this was done in humor...but was it? I dunno...it rolled right off me like rain as my response at the time indicated, but it was received with much less enthusiaum by others. [198]...oh well.-- MONGO 11:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm with MONGO here (at least I think I am), a ban is more than is needed, civility parole and perhaps an article ban should be sufficient. We can soon fix it if that is not enough, plenty of admins are watching this editor by now. Guy ( Help!) 14:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm not certain whether a yearlong ban is appropriate, but civility parole and an article ban seems quite mild. Perhaps 3 months of siteban followed by article ban and civility parole? This whole conflict became a circus long ago. Things need to settle down. Durova Charge! 06:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Clarification...I proposed a civility parole and probabtion from political articles, but I actually do think a ban is the best thing. Nothing personal, but the level of disruption and the block log of FAAFA and his previous account are indicative of a problem editor.-- MONGO 12:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Does anyone doubt that civility parole will lead to either withdrawal or a ban? Maybe we should give FAAFA a chance, but his/her behaviour on this mediation doesn't give me any reason to believe he/she might be able to abide by a civility parole. TheronJ
My feeling is that FAAFA has two problems: strong political bias, with a tendency to pile in without too much thought beforehand, and a badly misjudged sense of humour. I would hope that some kind of parole may work, but it is equally possible that it would rapidly end up with a long block. Is it worth a try? Who knows. I'd say we should get rid of BryanDean first and see what happens. Maybe without that particular provocation, the issue would be de-escalated to an acceptable degree. I'm also very reluctant to give a ban-evading puppet any satisfaction in the vendetta they are clearly here first and foremost to pursue. Guy ( Help!) 14:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree with Guy - Ban FAAFA and the Hinnen Brothers (Conjoined twins) will get exactly what they set out to get. I'd say we should not give them the satisfaction for a moment. I think a lot of FAAFA's incivility in this case is simply because he (and I) are totally convinced that Dean Hinnen is a ban-evading sock puppet. And when you are dealing with that, I think AGF at least goes right out the window. -- BenBurch 14:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment' FAAFA has a much longer history of disruption than Dean/Bryan. Considering that his latest conflict appears to be with Fred Bauder, it doesn't seem like banning Bryan would have much of an efect on FAAFA other than to reinforce his behavior. He has an RFC and multiple blocks. He has been given multiple chances. Many more than Dean/Bryan. If only Dean/Bryan would have been given this kind of chance, maybe they would have been more productive. Latest (3/8/2007) use of inappropriate user page [199] -- Tbeatty 14:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Like some others here, I think that banning FAAFA for a year is too harsh. I suggest a shorter ban, a year or so of parole/probation or (probably the best) a ban followed by a parole/probation period. CWC (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply

DeanHinnen blocked indefinitely

1) DeanHinnen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is to be blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of banned user BryanFromPalatine ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Comment by Arbitrators:
Accepted Fred Bauder 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Simple as can be. He doesn't need a separate ban, seeing as events in this case have shown he is clearly a sockpuppet, just a block. And if ArbCom endorses it, no wikilawyering can unblock him. Picaroon 23:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I like it. -- BenBurch 23:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Agreed. Long since passed the point of WP:DUCK. SirFozzie 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Quack. I mean endorse. Durova Charge! 06:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Support I am unmoved by Dean claims that he is not BFP for all the obvious reasons. After this proceeding began, I find it noteworthy that while Ben became FAR more civil and Faafa continued his usual uncivil, disruptive, extremist antics, only DeanHinnen actually ESCALATED all the behavior that brought the 3 of them here in the first place. If the disruption increases DURING an Arbcon, God only knows how bad it would be after it completes if DeanHinnen were to stay. There is no chance for rehabiliation. Encourage sitewide ban. Dman727 07:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support, obviously. Guy ( Help!) 14:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, I am not convinced -- rogerd 13:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
What would convince you, roger? -- BenBurch 15:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, I am not convinced either. While I do not endorse everything Dino does, I have taken the time to look at his edits in the past few weeks. I find nothing disruptive with any of them and I feel that if left alone without harrasment from the other two editors, Dino could well be an asset to wikipedia. Frankly all 3 of them have behaved attrociously in this issue, while Ben may well have seen the light early on and stepped out of the way of the oncoming train, the other two seemed determined to run at it full bore. 1 month block for FAAFA and Dino, warning to BenBurch. Let them do their time and come back with a clean slate. I also have to disagree with the comments made by Dman727, I think FAAFA did his fair share of escalating and as an admin GUY/JzG should certainly be put under some scrutiny for his continued provocation of Dino throughout ths whole page.

I can only look at the article that Dino has edited and I find no disruptive behavior in any of them, certainly there has been heated debate on talk pages and a prolofic amount of waffle on this arbitration. However we are not making a decision to ban a user because of the way he chooses to defend himself but on the quality of his work. Whatever BryanFromPalatine did before Dino became a member seems to be irrelevant to this discussion. As BFP has not edited at any time while Dino has been a member I don't see the problem.

If Dino is indeed the brother of PFP and they have similar views, that's not surprising, if a brother comes to the defence of another that is not surprising either. Frankly this whole case has been about who said what to whom and when. Most of this is ancient history and nothing Dino has done recently is in my opinion reason to destroy him. Block for 3 months along with FAAFA, then keep an eye on them both when they return. If the crap starts again, then boot them both forever. Mobile 01 Talk 14:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Arbitration Committee endorses consensus of Unblock-en-l

1) The consensus opinion of Unblock-en-l has found that DeanHinnen is not a sockpuppet, and has made a legitimate edit of the Free Republic article, in a good faith attempt to remove libel from Wikipedia articles; that he was blocked as a result; that he showed nothing but civility during subsequent proceedings at Unblock-en-l despite the time it took; and that he has the apologies of Unblock-en-l for this block. This opinion is endorsed by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. I e-mailed this to Newyorkbrad and he has instructed me to add this proposal, with the statement that any admin with a question about this can contact Newyorkbrad. Dino 18:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Confirming that I authorized Dino to add the proposal to this page (he had previously promised not to edit this page further without checking). No comment on the merits. Newyorkbrad 19:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Bwahahahahaha. Are you serious Dino? This is the most bizarre twisting of the facts yet. SirFozzie 19:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose - OMG! SirFozzie is %100 correct. -- BenBurch 19:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong oppose. The unblocking group itself has expressly stated that the decision should not be seen as consensus or anything other than an assumption of good faith, which some at least appear to regret in hindsight given Dino's subsequent disruption. The opinion is just that: an opinion, from a subset of a very small group. The legal threats, to name but one issue, completely overcome any minor outbreak of civility in the attempt to be unblocked. This proposal is without merit, as stated and endorsed by parties to the decision when the issue was raised above. Guy ( Help!) 23:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose The consensus opinion of Unblock-en-l was a good faith decision based on available evidence at that time. Since then a considerable amount of new evidence has surfaced which indicate that perhaps the decision of unblock-en-l was made in error. Dman727 06:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose. We've already been over this. Gamaliel 18:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Fairness And Accuracy For All ( talk · contribs)/ NBGPWS ( talk · contribs) is blocked for one month and placed on Civility Parole

1) For general incivility and personal attacks, Fairness And Accuracy For All ( talk · contribs)/ NBGPWS ( talk · contribs), is blocked for one month. He is also to be placed on Civility parole for one year. Any administrator who finds Fairness and Accuracy For All to be in breach of WP:CIVIL may block the account for up to one week per incident. After five such blocks, the block length can be lengthened to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed, in an atttempt to find a neutral ground. He HAS been incivil and violated WP:NPA, but the balance of fault lies elsewhere in this case. The Civility Parole will hopefully keep this from happening again. SirFozzie 21:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I still don't think a block is warranted at this point; if he violates the parole, for sure. Article ban, parole, and apply zealously. Guy ( Help!) 09:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree with Guy. But if we MUST have a block, a week would be much more in line with the offense. -- BenBurch 13:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Definately a block is warranted in this case. The evidence above proves the uncivil behaviour of this editor to be consistant. He has been given so many second chances and yet always continues to offend. As the editor above commented, getting rid of Dino would not stop FAAFA as he is already at war with yet another editor. He has a habit of getting involved with controversial articles and it would appear that he activly seeks out controvesy purely so as to stir the pot and sit back and enjoy the fireworks. Personally I have nothing against FAAFA and apart from a few notes of sarcasm and dubious humor, my dealings with him have been quite civil, however his history shows that this is not the case for everyone and a block may well force this editor to evaluate his reasons for being here and if they are genuinely for the advancement of wikipedia or for his entertainment. Mobile 01 Talk 15:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of bans

1) All site-wide bans are to be enforced with blocking. All article or topic-wide bans are to be enforced with reversion on sight per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Enforcement by reverting edits, and blocking may be used in the case of repeated violation of bans. All blocks and bans to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. A clerk may want to replace this with standard wording from previous cases. Picaroon 18:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic/Workshop&oldid=1214825735"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE